FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Question for Feminists. Episode 4
Question for Feminists. Episode 4
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the fucking point? You're the one who regularly changes the direction of threads, avoids answering questions and then complains about it. " I can't multitask like feminists do answering 10 people all typing at once, each of them asking 10 questions at once, mostly unrelated to the topic, just made for the purpose of bullying and scoring fake points for self validation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the fucking point? You're the one who regularly changes the direction of threads, avoids answering questions and then complains about it. I can't multitask like feminists do answering 10 people all typing at once, each of them asking 10 questions at once, mostly unrelated to the topic, just made for the purpose of bullying and scoring fake points for self validation. " Then embrace feminism perhaps, you might learn new skills as well as broadening your friends..   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the fucking point? You're the one who regularly changes the direction of threads, avoids answering questions and then complains about it. I can't multitask like feminists do answering 10 people all typing at once, each of them asking 10 questions at once, mostly unrelated to the topic, just made for the purpose of bullying and scoring fake points for self validation. Then embrace feminism perhaps, you might learn new skills as well as broadening your friends.. "Only time I am a feminist is when she's on top of me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the fucking point? You're the one who regularly changes the direction of threads, avoids answering questions and then complains about it. I can't multitask like feminists do answering 10 people all typing at once, each of them asking 10 questions at once, mostly unrelated to the topic, just made for the purpose of bullying and scoring fake points for self validation. Then embrace feminism perhaps, you might learn new skills as well as broadening your friends..
Only time I am a feminist is when she's on top of me. "And even then I have to do most of the work! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't murder gay people by pushing them off buildings.." 1- Do you have any evidence any Muslim have pushed gays from top of buildings? 2- Prove to me that's an immoral thing to do. (and before you jump to your imaginative conclusion, no I am not codoing it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't murder gay people by pushing them off buildings.. 1- Do you have any evidence any Muslim have pushed gays from top of buildings? 2- Prove to me that's an immoral thing to do. (and before you jump to your imaginative conclusion, no I am not codoing it " Is it immoral to push a straight person off the top of a building for being straight? If you say yes, you have your answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't murder gay people by pushing them off buildings.. 1- Do you have any evidence any Muslim have pushed gays from top of buildings? 2- Prove to me that's an immoral thing to do. (and before you jump to your imaginative conclusion, no I am not codoing it " Did I say Muslims? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't stone to death women who have an affair.. "We are very feminist on that point: 100% equality stoning to both males and females. Western propaganda has given you half the information to manipulate your feelings... Successfully | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't murder gay people by pushing them off buildings.. 1- Do you have any evidence any Muslim have pushed gays from top of buildings? 2- Prove to me that's an immoral thing to do. (and before you jump to your imaginative conclusion, no I am not codoing it Is it immoral to push a straight person off the top of a building for being straight? If you say yes, you have your answer. " What I thing is moral or not is not a proof of your beliefs. Irrelevant. Try again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't stone to death women who have an affair..
We are very feminist on that point: 100% equality stoning to both males and females. Western propaganda has given you half the information to manipulate your feelings... Successfully "Who is we? You support stoning to death of people? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't murder gay people by pushing them off buildings.. 1- Do you have any evidence any Muslim have pushed gays from top of buildings? 2- Prove to me that's an immoral thing to do. (and before you jump to your imaginative conclusion, no I am not codoing it Is it immoral to push a straight person off the top of a building for being straight? If you say yes, you have your answer. What I thing is moral or not is not a proof of your beliefs. Irrelevant. Try again" Can’t help but notice you dodged the question there, pal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't kid#ap school age girls, hold the hostage and abuse them.. "thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that. You're avoiding answering the original question though. Where do you get your moral code from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't murder gay people by pushing them off buildings.. 1- Do you have any evidence any Muslim have pushed gays from top of buildings? 2- Prove to me that's an immoral thing to do. (and before you jump to your imaginative conclusion, no I am not codoing it Is it immoral to push a straight person off the top of a building for being straight? If you say yes, you have your answer. What I thing is moral or not is not a proof of your beliefs. Irrelevant. Try again Can’t help but notice you dodged the question there, pal." Again, you're outting yourself in the position of a judge asking a criminal. Answer the OP question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't murder gay people by pushing them off buildings.. 1- Do you have any evidence any Muslim have pushed gays from top of buildings? 2- Prove to me that's an immoral thing to do. (and before you jump to your imaginative conclusion, no I am not codoing it Is it immoral to push a straight person off the top of a building for being straight? If you say yes, you have your answer. What I thing is moral or not is not a proof of your beliefs. Irrelevant. Try again Can’t help but notice you dodged the question there, pal." You either do or don’t debate with certain peoples, what is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't kid#ap school age girls, hold the hostage and abuse them..
thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that.
You're avoiding answering the original question though.
Where do you get your moral code from?
"Not from a book
You? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They can drive without a man.. "Who said they can't drive? You | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't murder gay people by pushing them off buildings.. 1- Do you have any evidence any Muslim have pushed gays from top of buildings? 2- Prove to me that's an immoral thing to do. (and before you jump to your imaginative conclusion, no I am not codoing it Is it immoral to push a straight person off the top of a building for being straight? If you say yes, you have your answer. What I thing is moral or not is not a proof of your beliefs. Irrelevant. Try again Can’t help but notice you dodged the question there, pal. You either do or don’t debate with certain peoples, what is it?" Well I’m uncomfortable with him asking a question about whether it’s immoral to throw gays off of buildings, so I’d kinda like an answer, if that’s alright with you. We already know he’s a paedo apologist, let’s see what else he is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't kid#ap school age girls, hold the hostage and abuse them..
thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that.
You're avoiding answering the original question though.
Where do you get your moral code from?
Not from a book
You?"So you have no moral code then! Ok | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't kid#ap school age girls, hold the hostage and abuse them..
thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that.
You're avoiding answering the original question though.
Where do you get your moral code from?
"Seems crazy you’ve been holding court all day, I can’t believe how thirsty some people are to score a point or how bored maybe. Once the penny drops and you no longer get your rise, what on earth will you do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't murder gay people by pushing them off buildings.. 1- Do you have any evidence any Muslim have pushed gays from top of buildings? 2- Prove to me that's an immoral thing to do. (and before you jump to your imaginative conclusion, no I am not codoing it Is it immoral to push a straight person off the top of a building for being straight? If you say yes, you have your answer. What I thing is moral or not is not a proof of your beliefs. Irrelevant. Try again Can’t help but notice you dodged the question there, pal. You either do or don’t debate with certain peoples, what is it? Well I’m uncomfortable with him asking a question about whether it’s immoral to throw gays off of buildings, so I’d kinda like an answer, if that’s alright with you. We already know he’s a paedo apologist, let’s see what else he is " Reported this tim | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that. " No true Scotsman, either? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't murder gay people by pushing them off buildings.. 1- Do you have any evidence any Muslim have pushed gays from top of buildings? 2- Prove to me that's an immoral thing to do. (and before you jump to your imaginative conclusion, no I am not codoing it Is it immoral to push a straight person off the top of a building for being straight? If you say yes, you have your answer. What I thing is moral or not is not a proof of your beliefs. Irrelevant. Try again Can’t help but notice you dodged the question there, pal. You either do or don’t debate with certain peoples, what is it? Well I’m uncomfortable with him asking a question about whether it’s immoral to throw gays off of buildings, so I’d kinda like an answer, if that’s alright with you. We already know he’s a paedo apologist, let’s see what else he is Reported this tim" Why? You had the opportunity on the other thread to refute it, in which case i said I’d apologise and delete the post - you chose not to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't kid#ap school age girls, hold the hostage and abuse them..
thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that.
You're avoiding answering the original question though.
Where do you get your moral code from?
Not from a book
You?
So you have no moral code then! Ok"Actually, from a mother who was a feminist..
So yours comes from a book..
Does that mean you live by that book and all therein..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't murder gay people by pushing them off buildings.. 1- Do you have any evidence any Muslim have pushed gays from top of buildings? 2- Prove to me that's an immoral thing to do. (and before you jump to your imaginative conclusion, no I am not codoing it Is it immoral to push a straight person off the top of a building for being straight? If you say yes, you have your answer. What I thing is moral or not is not a proof of your beliefs. Irrelevant. Try again Can’t help but notice you dodged the question there, pal. You either do or don’t debate with certain peoples, what is it? Well I’m uncomfortable with him asking a question about whether it’s immoral to throw gays off of buildings, so I’d kinda like an answer, if that’s alright with you. We already know he’s a paedo apologist, let’s see what else he is Reported this tim" You called another poster a cunt.. Reported that too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't murder gay people by pushing them off buildings.. 1- Do you have any evidence any Muslim have pushed gays from top of buildings? 2- Prove to me that's an immoral thing to do. (and before you jump to your imaginative conclusion, no I am not codoing it Is it immoral to push a straight person off the top of a building for being straight? If you say yes, you have your answer. What I thing is moral or not is not a proof of your beliefs. Irrelevant. Try again Can’t help but notice you dodged the question there, pal. You either do or don’t debate with certain peoples, what is it? Well I’m uncomfortable with him asking a question about whether it’s immoral to throw gays off of buildings, so I’d kinda like an answer, if that’s alright with you. We already know he’s a paedo apologist, let’s see what else he is Reported this tim Why? You had the opportunity on the other thread to refute it, in which case i said I’d apologise and delete the post - you chose not to. " Debating is ok. Insulting the worst insults... My kindness and patience has a limit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Debating is ok. Insulting the worst insults... My kindness and patience has a limit" You can call someone genocidal for eating at McDonald's, but you can't call someone a paedophile for refusing to denounce child sex? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't murder gay people by pushing them off buildings.. 1- Do you have any evidence any Muslim have pushed gays from top of buildings? 2- Prove to me that's an immoral thing to do. (and before you jump to your imaginative conclusion, no I am not codoing it Is it immoral to push a straight person off the top of a building for being straight? If you say yes, you have your answer. What I thing is moral or not is not a proof of your beliefs. Irrelevant. Try again Can’t help but notice you dodged the question there, pal. You either do or don’t debate with certain peoples, what is it? Well I’m uncomfortable with him asking a question about whether it’s immoral to throw gays off of buildings, so I’d kinda like an answer, if that’s alright with you. We already know he’s a paedo apologist, let’s see what else he is Reported this tim Why? You had the opportunity on the other thread to refute it, in which case i said I’d apologise and delete the post - you chose not to. Debating is ok. Insulting the worst insults... My kindness and patience has a limit" Insulting? You’ve been asked repeatedly how you feel on a particular subject, and refused to answer. I twice suggested that it looked a particular way and offered you an apology if you refuted it. You didn’t refute it. Your backwards sky-fairy ideology is no different from the other backwards sky-fairy ideologies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Debating is ok. Insulting the worst insults... My kindness and patience has a limit You can call someone genocidal for eating at McDonald's, but you can't call someone a paedophile for refusing to denounce child sex?" I didn’t even call him that. I called him an apologist for it. I stand by it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't kid#ap school age girls, hold the hostage and abuse them..
thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that.
You're avoiding answering the original question though.
Where do you get your moral code from?
Not from a book
You?
So you have no moral code then! Ok
Actually, from a mother who was a feminist..
So yours comes from a book..
Does that mean you live by that book and all therein..?"Who cares about your mother's morals? Nobody is bound by your mother's morals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't kid#ap school age girls, hold the hostage and abuse them..
thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that.
You're avoiding answering the original question though.
Where do you get your moral code from?
Not from a book
You?
So you have no moral code then! Ok
Actually, from a mother who was a feminist..
So yours comes from a book..
Does that mean you live by that book and all therein..?
Who cares about your mother's morals? Nobody is bound by your mother's morals. "You know your book was written by fallible men? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Debating is ok. Insulting the worst insults... My kindness and patience has a limit You can call someone genocidal for eating at McDonald's, but you can't call someone a paedophile for refusing to denounce child sex? I didn’t even call him that. I called him an apologist for it. I stand by it. " It wasn't for eating at McDonald's. It was fir ridiculing people who boycott genocide supporters such as MacDonald | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't kid#ap school age girls, hold the hostage and abuse them..
thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that.
You're avoiding answering the original question though.
Where do you get your moral code from?
Not from a book
You?
So you have no moral code then! Ok
Actually, from a mother who was a feminist..
So yours comes from a book..
Does that mean you live by that book and all therein..?
Who cares about your mother's morals? Nobody is bound by your mother's morals.
You know your book was written by fallible men?"2 billion people disagree with you. Now what's your Moral code that you can objectively use to judge Muslims from a higher moral ground. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't kid#ap school age girls, hold the hostage and abuse them..
thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that.
You're avoiding answering the original question though.
Where do you get your moral code from?
Not from a book
You?
So you have no moral code then! Ok
Actually, from a mother who was a feminist..
So yours comes from a book..
Does that mean you live by that book and all therein..?
Who cares about your mother's morals? Nobody is bound by your mother's morals.
You know your book was written by fallible men?
2 billion people disagree with you. Now what's your Moral code that you can objectively use to judge Muslims from a higher moral ground. "I don’t judge Muslims unfairly. They get the same treatment as all organised religions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't kid#ap school age girls, hold the hostage and abuse them..
thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that.
You're avoiding answering the original question though.
Where do you get your moral code from?
Not from a book
You?
So you have no moral code then! Ok
Actually, from a mother who was a feminist..
So yours comes from a book..
Does that mean you live by that book and all therein..?
Who cares about your mother's morals? Nobody is bound by your mother's morals. "Correction.. Her 5 children have since birth, their children too and guess what they took have passed the same morals on to their children too ..
So your own morals come from where or whom if you can please?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't kid#ap school age girls, hold the hostage and abuse them..
thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that.
You're avoiding answering the original question though.
Where do you get your moral code from?
Not from a book
You?
So you have no moral code then! Ok
Actually, from a mother who was a feminist..
So yours comes from a book..
Does that mean you live by that book and all therein..?
Who cares about your mother's morals? Nobody is bound by your mother's morals.
You know your book was written by fallible men?
2 billion people disagree with you. Now what's your Moral code that you can objectively use to judge Muslims from a higher moral ground.
I don’t judge Muslims unfairly. They get the same treatment as all organised religions.
"And who appointed you as a judge? Every judge has a Law they refer to. What's your Moral ground you for judging others? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't kid#ap school age girls, hold the hostage and abuse them..
thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that.
You're avoiding answering the original question though.
Where do you get your moral code from?
Not from a book
You?
So you have no moral code then! Ok
Actually, from a mother who was a feminist..
So yours comes from a book..
Does that mean you live by that book and all therein..?
Who cares about your mother's morals? Nobody is bound by your mother's morals.
You know your book was written by fallible men?
2 billion people disagree with you. Now what's your Moral code that you can objectively use to judge Muslims from a higher moral ground.
I don’t judge Muslims unfairly. They get the same treatment as all organised religions.
And who appointed you as a judge? Every judge has a Law they refer to. What's your Moral ground you for judging others? "You use* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't murder gay people by pushing them off buildings.. 1- Do you have any evidence any Muslim have pushed gays from top of buildings? 2- Prove to me that's an immoral thing to do. (and before you jump to your imaginative conclusion, no I am not codoing it Is it immoral to push a straight person off the top of a building for being straight? If you say yes, you have your answer. What I thing is moral or not is not a proof of your beliefs. Irrelevant. Try again Can’t help but notice you dodged the question there, pal. You either do or don’t debate with certain peoples, what is it? Well I’m uncomfortable with him asking a question about whether it’s immoral to throw gays off of buildings, so I’d kinda like an answer, if that’s alright with you. We already know he’s a paedo apologist, let’s see what else he is Reported this tim Why? You had the opportunity on the other thread to refute it, in which case i said I’d apologise and delete the post - you chose not to. Debating is ok. Insulting the worst insults... My kindness and patience has a limit" But you called someone a cunt? Are others not entitled to the same levels of courtesy from you that you expect from others? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't kid#ap school age girls, hold the hostage and abuse them..
thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that.
You're avoiding answering the original question though.
Where do you get your moral code from?
Not from a book
You?
So you have no moral code then! Ok
Actually, from a mother who was a feminist..
So yours comes from a book..
Does that mean you live by that book and all therein..?
Who cares about your mother's morals? Nobody is bound by your mother's morals.
You know your book was written by fallible men?
2 billion people disagree with you. Now what's your Moral code that you can objectively use to judge Muslims from a higher moral ground.
I don’t judge Muslims unfairly. They get the same treatment as all organised religions.
And who appointed you as a judge? Every judge has a Law they refer to. What's your Moral ground you for judging others? "I don’t claim to be a judge. I do claim (accurately) that organised religion has been historically responsible for much of the evil in the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't kid#ap school age girls, hold the hostage and abuse them..
thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that.
You're avoiding answering the original question though.
Where do you get your moral code from?
Not from a book
You?
So you have no moral code then! Ok
Actually, from a mother who was a feminist..
So yours comes from a book..
Does that mean you live by that book and all therein..?
Who cares about your mother's morals? Nobody is bound by your mother's morals.
You know your book was written by fallible men?
2 billion people disagree with you. Now what's your Moral code that you can objectively use to judge Muslims from a higher moral ground.
I don’t judge Muslims unfairly. They get the same treatment as all organised religions.
And who appointed you as a judge? Every judge has a Law they refer to. What's your Moral ground you for judging others? "Ganghis Khan gave his enemies they same treatment. Anyone who doesn't surrender gets his city genocided. Does that make his judgement just? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But you called someone a cunt? Are others not entitled to the same levels of courtesy from you that you expect from others?" Do unto others? Wrong religion  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't kid#ap school age girls, hold the hostage and abuse them..
thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that.
You're avoiding answering the original question though.
Where do you get your moral code from?
Not from a book
You?
So you have no moral code then! Ok
Actually, from a mother who was a feminist..
So yours comes from a book..
Does that mean you live by that book and all therein..?
Who cares about your mother's morals? Nobody is bound by your mother's morals.
You know your book was written by fallible men?
2 billion people disagree with you. Now what's your Moral code that you can objectively use to judge Muslims from a higher moral ground.
I don’t judge Muslims unfairly. They get the same treatment as all organised religions.
And who appointed you as a judge? Every judge has a Law they refer to. What's your Moral ground you for judging others?
I don’t claim to be a judge. I do claim (accurately) that organised religion has been historically responsible for much of the evil in the world.
"Stalin and Mao were responsible for more deaths in the past century than all religions combined. They were Atheists religion haters like yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But you called someone a cunt? Are others not entitled to the same levels of courtesy from you that you expect from others? Do unto others? Wrong religion "Evidently double standards and hypocrisy are the perception by some of how they live and how others must conform.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morality is clearly subjective. I'd argue that in general (and maybe we could say this is on some socio evolution basis) changes tend to be for the better rather than worse. (I'm sure there are exceptions) So where a culture used to do X and now sees it as immorral, I'd suggest that means it's, on balance, a good thing to not do X. And if a society is still doing X, maybe it's worthwhile reflecting on why someone else who used to have their views has now changed. Possibly changes in that societies world has allowed it to become "more moral". When you have high infant mortality and less medical need to start families earlier, as you need to have more kids, and it's riskier to have later life pregnancies. Context matters. Morality isn't absolute. This is a general view and I would guess there are things that other cultures have stopped doing that we could learn from. There will be exceptions, and these will be interesting to debate too. " The majority of the world sees the west as more immoral today than it was last year. So your judgement of change is better is subjective. The west used to view family is sacred and to be protected. Now the west sees the family as the enemy. What made that xhange better? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Stalin and Mao were responsible for more deaths in the past century than all religions combined. They were Atheists religion haters like yourself. " Mass murder top trumps isn't the best example or justification for the perception by some of how they hide behind their book to butcher others is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morality is clearly subjective. I'd argue that in general (and maybe we could say this is on some socio evolution basis) changes tend to be for the better rather than worse. (I'm sure there are exceptions) So where a culture used to do X and now sees it as immorral, I'd suggest that means it's, on balance, a good thing to not do X. And if a society is still doing X, maybe it's worthwhile reflecting on why someone else who used to have their views has now changed. Possibly changes in that societies world has allowed it to become "more moral". When you have high infant mortality and less medical need to start families earlier, as you need to have more kids, and it's riskier to have later life pregnancies. Context matters. Morality isn't absolute. This is a general view and I would guess there are things that other cultures have stopped doing that we could learn from. There will be exceptions, and these will be interesting to debate too. " Oddly enough, bearing children too young (under 15) is risky too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are good because.. They don't kid#ap school age girls, hold the hostage and abuse them..
thought that's what Israel do with western blessing. No good Muslim does that.
You're avoiding answering the original question though.
Where do you get your moral code from?
Not from a book
You?
So you have no moral code then! Ok
Actually, from a mother who was a feminist..
So yours comes from a book..
Does that mean you live by that book and all therein..?
Who cares about your mother's morals? Nobody is bound by your mother's morals.
You know your book was written by fallible men?
2 billion people disagree with you. Now what's your Moral code that you can objectively use to judge Muslims from a higher moral ground.
I don’t judge Muslims unfairly. They get the same treatment as all organised religions.
And who appointed you as a judge? Every judge has a Law they refer to. What's your Moral ground you for judging others?
I don’t claim to be a judge. I do claim (accurately) that organised religion has been historically responsible for much of the evil in the world.
Stalin and Mao were responsible for more deaths in the past century than all religions combined. They were Atheists religion haters like yourself. "And the funny thing is, we all end up in exactly the same place. In the ground. And one day when the sun goes supernova, we’ll be scattered through the universe, ready to set off another reaction in a cloud of dust somewhere and create new planets. Perhaps new life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morality is clearly subjective. I'd argue that in general (and maybe we could say this is on some socio evolution basis) changes tend to be for the better rather than worse. (I'm sure there are exceptions) So where a culture used to do X and now sees it as immorral, I'd suggest that means it's, on balance, a good thing to not do X. And if a society is still doing X, maybe it's worthwhile reflecting on why someone else who used to have their views has now changed. Possibly changes in that societies world has allowed it to become "more moral". When you have high infant mortality and less medical need to start families earlier, as you need to have more kids, and it's riskier to have later life pregnancies. Context matters. Morality isn't absolute. This is a general view and I would guess there are things that other cultures have stopped doing that we could learn from. There will be exceptions, and these will be interesting to debate too. The majority of the world sees the west as more immoral today than it was last year. So your judgement of change is better is subjective. The west used to view family is sacred and to be protected. Now the west sees the family as the enemy. What made that xhange better? " I'd view changes in terms of generations not years. However my point wasn't about we see each other. But how our own cultures views change. The whole "family is the enemy" needs more context. But that may derail your own thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully this one is more civilised. Rule 1- One thread , one topic not 100. Rule 2- One Question at a time. Rule 3- Try not to be a cunt about it. Dick is allowed for its superior to cunt. No kidding! Topic: Those who believe the West has something about Morality to teach Muslims (Corrupt Muslim Dictators are not included). Where do you get your Moral code from? " 1. Stuff your rules! 2. When you stop calling people cunts, genocide supporters, and other such insults, I will stop having a go at you! 3. When you directly answer a question you have been asked multiple times across two threads, then maybe we will answer your question(s)… So on that note: Do you think it is ok for 13yr old girls to be married to and have sex with adult males? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the fucking point? You're the one who regularly changes the direction of threads, avoids answering questions and then complains about it. I can't multitask like feminists do answering 10 people all typing at once, each of them asking 10 questions at once, mostly unrelated to the topic, just made for the purpose of bullying and scoring fake points for self validation. Then embrace feminism perhaps, you might learn new skills as well as broadening your friends..
Only time I am a feminist is when she's on top of me. "So I suspect that is probably never then!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully this one is more civilised. Rule 1- One thread , one topic not 100. Rule 2- One Question at a time. Rule 3- Try not to be a cunt about it. Dick is allowed for its superior to cunt. No kidding! Topic: Those who believe the West has something about Morality to teach Muslims (Corrupt Muslim Dictators are not included). Where do you get your Moral code from? 1. Stuff your rules! 2. When you stop calling people cunts, genocide supporters, and other such insults, I will stop having a go at you! 3. When you directly answer a question you have been asked multiple times across two threads, then maybe we will answer your question(s)… So on that note: Do you think it is ok for 13yr old girls to be married to and have sex with adult males?" I have a funny feeling he may not be coming back for a few days  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the fucking point? You're the one who regularly changes the direction of threads, avoids answering questions and then complains about it. I can't multitask like feminists do answering 10 people all typing at once, each of them asking 10 questions at once, mostly unrelated to the topic, just made for the purpose of bullying and scoring fake points for self validation. Then embrace feminism perhaps, you might learn new skills as well as broadening your friends..
Only time I am a feminist is when she's on top of me. And even then I have to do most of the work! "Is that another fantasy that has never happened? How is Fab working out for you BTW? Bit harder to meet people now that E is no longer interested? Does E know you are trying to “swing” on your own? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully this one is more civilised. Rule 1- One thread , one topic not 100. Rule 2- One Question at a time. Rule 3- Try not to be a cunt about it. Dick is allowed for its superior to cunt. No kidding! Topic: Those who believe the West has something about Morality to teach Muslims (Corrupt Muslim Dictators are not included). Where do you get your Moral code from? 1. Stuff your rules! 2. When you stop calling people cunts, genocide supporters, and other such insults, I will stop having a go at you! 3. When you directly answer a question you have been asked multiple times across two threads, then maybe we will answer your question(s)… So on that note: Do you think it is ok for 13yr old girls to be married to and have sex with adult males? I have a funny feeling he may not be coming back for a few days "Silver linings! Probably get Fab accused of being a zionist conspiracy though! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully this one is more civilised. Rule 1- One thread , one topic not 100. Rule 2- One Question at a time. Rule 3- Try not to be a cunt about it. Dick is allowed for its superior to cunt. No kidding! Topic: Those who believe the West has something about Morality to teach Muslims (Corrupt Muslim Dictators are not included). Where do you get your Moral code from? 1. Stuff your rules! 2. When you stop calling people cunts, genocide supporters, and other such insults, I will stop having a go at you! 3. When you directly answer a question you have been asked multiple times across two threads, then maybe we will answer your question(s)… So on that note: Do you think it is ok for 13yr old girls to be married to and have sex with adult males? I have a funny feeling he may not be coming back for a few days
Silver linings! Probably get Fab accused of being a zionist conspiracy though!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OP you refuse to condemn the sexual abuse of a 9 year old girl by a 53 year old man. Your morality stinks, Mrs x" interestingly there is some schools of thought that this story was created as part of the sunni/Shiite division. I'd also ask if (we assume it to be true) whether he had sex. Marriage used to be more about power and families than sex and love. Hence arrange marriages. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully this one is more civilised. Rule 1- One thread , one topic not 100. Rule 2- One Question at a time. Rule 3- Try not to be a cunt about it. Dick is allowed for its superior to cunt. No kidding! Topic: Those who believe the West has something about Morality to teach Muslims (Corrupt Muslim Dictators are not included). Where do you get your Moral code from? 1. Stuff your rules! 2. When you stop calling people cunts, genocide supporters, and other such insults, I will stop having a go at you! 3. When you directly answer a question you have been asked multiple times across two threads, then maybe we will answer your question(s)… So on that note: Do you think it is ok for 13yr old girls to be married to and have sex with adult males?" I looked (wiki) at islam and consent. Girls can be married at any age but must live their guardian until menses and physical maturity (it's to do with the pelvis, or child bearing). Unlikely to be 13. I would rather press my previous question re FGM. The reason being is that no girl (under UK law) can give consent - hence outlawed. Btw did you know there are three types and is not comparable to male circumcision as it has NO benefit to the girl whatsoever. But AandE states consensual gender reassignment surgery is worse. WTAF!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully this one is more civilised. Rule 1- One thread , one topic not 100. Rule 2- One Question at a time. Rule 3- Try not to be a cunt about it. Dick is allowed for its superior to cunt. No kidding! Topic: Those who believe the West has something about Morality to teach Muslims (Corrupt Muslim Dictators are not included). Where do you get your Moral code from? 1. Stuff your rules! 2. When you stop calling people cunts, genocide supporters, and other such insults, I will stop having a go at you! 3. When you directly answer a question you have been asked multiple times across two threads, then maybe we will answer your question(s)… So on that note: Do you think it is ok for 13yr old girls to be married to and have sex with adult males? I looked (wiki) at islam and consent. Girls can be married at any age but must live their guardian until menses and physical maturity (it's to do with the pelvis, or child bearing). Unlikely to be 13. I would rather press my previous question re FGM. The reason being is that no girl (under UK law) can give consent - hence outlawed. Btw did you know there are three types and is not comparable to male circumcision as it has NO benefit to the girl whatsoever. But AandE states consensual gender reassignment surgery is worse. WTAF!!!!" There’s no benefit to male circumcision either - some may be required for medical reasons, but that’s it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OP you refuse to condemn the sexual abuse of a 9 year old girl by a 53 year old man. Your morality stinks, Mrs x" That's cos his name isn't Epstein. Seriously though, is there any point in condemning historical figures? We can only judge by today's laws and this country's laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully this one is more civilised. Rule 1- One thread , one topic not 100. Rule 2- One Question at a time. Rule 3- Try not to be a cunt about it. Dick is allowed for its superior to cunt. No kidding! Topic: Those who believe the West has something about Morality to teach Muslims (Corrupt Muslim Dictators are not included). Where do you get your Moral code from? 1. Stuff your rules! 2. When you stop calling people cunts, genocide supporters, and other such insults, I will stop having a go at you! 3. When you directly answer a question you have been asked multiple times across two threads, then maybe we will answer your question(s)… So on that note: Do you think it is ok for 13yr old girls to be married to and have sex with adult males? I looked (wiki) at islam and consent. Girls can be married at any age but must live their guardian until menses and physical maturity (it's to do with the pelvis, or child bearing). Unlikely to be 13. I would rather press my previous question re FGM. The reason being is that no girl (under UK law) can give consent - hence outlawed. Btw did you know there are three types and is not comparable to male circumcision as it has NO benefit to the girl whatsoever. But AandE states consensual gender reassignment surgery is worse. WTAF!!!! There’s no benefit to male circumcision either - some may be required for medical reasons, but that’s it." It's not outlawed in this country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully this one is more civilised. Rule 1- One thread , one topic not 100. Rule 2- One Question at a time. Rule 3- Try not to be a cunt about it. Dick is allowed for its superior to cunt. No kidding! Topic: Those who believe the West has something about Morality to teach Muslims (Corrupt Muslim Dictators are not included). Where do you get your Moral code from? 1. Stuff your rules! 2. When you stop calling people cunts, genocide supporters, and other such insults, I will stop having a go at you! 3. When you directly answer a question you have been asked multiple times across two threads, then maybe we will answer your question(s)… So on that note: Do you think it is ok for 13yr old girls to be married to and have sex with adult males? I looked (wiki) at islam and consent. Girls can be married at any age but must live their guardian until menses and physical maturity (it's to do with the pelvis, or child bearing). Unlikely to be 13. I would rather press my previous question re FGM. The reason being is that no girl (under UK law) can give consent - hence outlawed. Btw did you know there are three types and is not comparable to male circumcision as it has NO benefit to the girl whatsoever. But AandE states consensual gender reassignment surgery is worse. WTAF!!!! There’s no benefit to male circumcision either - some may be required for medical reasons, but that’s it. It's not outlawed in this country." It’s still genital mutilation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully this one is more civilised. Rule 1- One thread , one topic not 100. Rule 2- One Question at a time. Rule 3- Try not to be a cunt about it. Dick is allowed for its superior to cunt. No kidding! Topic: Those who believe the West has something about Morality to teach Muslims (Corrupt Muslim Dictators are not included). Where do you get your Moral code from? 1. Stuff your rules! 2. When you stop calling people cunts, genocide supporters, and other such insults, I will stop having a go at you! 3. When you directly answer a question you have been asked multiple times across two threads, then maybe we will answer your question(s)… So on that note: Do you think it is ok for 13yr old girls to be married to and have sex with adult males? I looked (wiki) at islam and consent. Girls can be married at any age but must live their guardian until menses and physical maturity (it's to do with the pelvis, or child bearing). Unlikely to be 13. I would rather press my previous question re FGM. The reason being is that no girl (under UK law) can give consent - hence outlawed. Btw did you know there are three types and is not comparable to male circumcision as it has NO benefit to the girl whatsoever. But AandE states consensual gender reassignment surgery is worse. WTAF!!!! There’s no benefit to male circumcision either - some may be required for medical reasons, but that’s it. It's not outlawed in this country. It’s still genital mutilation " Back in a 2010 paper it stated the WHO advocated circumcision where AIDS is at epidemic proportions. HIV passed from woman to man was reduced by 60% in circumcised men. Not beneficial? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully this one is more civilised. Rule 1- One thread , one topic not 100. Rule 2- One Question at a time. Rule 3- Try not to be a cunt about it. Dick is allowed for its superior to cunt. No kidding! Topic: Those who believe the West has something about Morality to teach Muslims (Corrupt Muslim Dictators are not included). Where do you get your Moral code from? 1. Stuff your rules! 2. When you stop calling people cunts, genocide supporters, and other such insults, I will stop having a go at you! 3. When you directly answer a question you have been asked multiple times across two threads, then maybe we will answer your question(s)… So on that note: Do you think it is ok for 13yr old girls to be married to and have sex with adult males? I looked (wiki) at islam and consent. Girls can be married at any age but must live their guardian until menses and physical maturity (it's to do with the pelvis, or child bearing). Unlikely to be 13. I would rather press my previous question re FGM. The reason being is that no girl (under UK law) can give consent - hence outlawed. Btw did you know there are three types and is not comparable to male circumcision as it has NO benefit to the girl whatsoever. But AandE states consensual gender reassignment surgery is worse. WTAF!!!! There’s no benefit to male circumcision either - some may be required for medical reasons, but that’s it. It's not outlawed in this country. It’s still genital mutilation " So guys who have it done for health or aesthetics reasons - still mutilation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mutilation - disfigurement or damage. Is gender reassignment surgery mutilation? NO. Is male circumcision mutilation? NO. Is female circumcision mutilation? YES, any of the forms." For some (extremely right foreskin) it’s a health necessity. Anything else it’s not. It’s mutilation. Now if adults want to have it done, that’s their call. But having your child circumcised is abhorrent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OP you refuse to condemn the sexual abuse of a 9 year old girl by a 53 year old man. Your morality stinks, Mrs x interestingly there is some schools of thought that this story was created as part of the sunni/Shiite division. I'd also ask if (we assume it to be true) whether he had sex. Marriage used to be more about power and families than sex and love. Hence arrange marriages. " If there are then they are not correct. Aisha even stated that the marriage was consummated when she was 9 years old. Sahih al-Bukhari, 5134; Book 67, Hadith 70.28 Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mutilation - disfigurement or damage. Is gender reassignment surgery mutilation? NO. Is male circumcision mutilation? NO. Is female circumcision mutilation? YES, any of the forms. For some (extremely right foreskin) it’s a health necessity. Anything else it’s not. It’s mutilation. Now if adults want to have it done, that’s their call. But having your child circumcised is abhorrent. " There are millions who'd disagree. If I was Jewish, my son would never have had to go through the ordeal at 2 years old! And going back to the word mutilation, there is no disfigurement or damage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OP you refuse to condemn the sexual abuse of a 9 year old girl by a 53 year old man. Your morality stinks, Mrs x interestingly there is some schools of thought that this story was created as part of the sunni/Shiite division. I'd also ask if (we assume it to be true) whether he had sex. Marriage used to be more about power and families than sex and love. Hence arrange marriages. If there are then they are not correct. Aisha even stated that the marriage was consummated when she was 9 years old. Sahih al-Bukhari, 5134; Book 67, Hadith 70.28 Mrs x" good knowledge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mutilation - disfigurement or damage. Is gender reassignment surgery mutilation? NO. Is male circumcision mutilation? NO. Is female circumcision mutilation? YES, any of the forms. For some (extremely right foreskin) it’s a health necessity. Anything else it’s not. It’s mutilation. Now if adults want to have it done, that’s their call. But having your child circumcised is abhorrent. There are millions who'd disagree. If I was Jewish, my son would never have had to go through the ordeal at 2 years old! And going back to the word mutilation, there is no disfigurement or damage." No damage? Cutting a bit off that you were born with is damage. As I say, adults can do as they please - but anything that isn’t medically necessary should not men inflicted on children. Even getting infants ears pierced (and I speak as someone with several piercings) is awful. Your body is your own, and it’s not for anyone, including parents, to change it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mutilation - disfigurement or damage. Is gender reassignment surgery mutilation? NO. Is male circumcision mutilation? NO. Is female circumcision mutilation? YES, any of the forms. For some (extremely right foreskin) it’s a health necessity. Anything else it’s not. It’s mutilation. Now if adults want to have it done, that’s their call. But having your child circumcised is abhorrent. There are millions who'd disagree. If I was Jewish, my son would never have had to go through the ordeal at 2 years old! And going back to the word mutilation, there is no disfigurement or damage. No damage? Cutting a bit off that you were born with is damage. As I say, adults can do as they please - but anything that isn’t medically necessary should not men inflicted on children. Even getting infants ears pierced (and I speak as someone with several piercings) is awful. Your body is your own, and it’s not for anyone, including parents, to change it." So on that basis, removal of the appendix must be mutilation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mutilation - disfigurement or damage. Is gender reassignment surgery mutilation? NO. Is male circumcision mutilation? NO. Is female circumcision mutilation? YES, any of the forms. For some (extremely right foreskin) it’s a health necessity. Anything else it’s not. It’s mutilation. Now if adults want to have it done, that’s their call. But having your child circumcised is abhorrent. There are millions who'd disagree. If I was Jewish, my son would never have had to go through the ordeal at 2 years old! And going back to the word mutilation, there is no disfigurement or damage. No damage? Cutting a bit off that you were born with is damage. As I say, adults can do as they please - but anything that isn’t medically necessary should not men inflicted on children. Even getting infants ears pierced (and I speak as someone with several piercings) is awful. Your body is your own, and it’s not for anyone, including parents, to change it. So on that basis, removal of the appendix must be mutilation." The appendix is removed for medical reasons, just like a tight foreskin. Parents aren’t getting their kids appendixes out for no reason without permission, are they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mutilation - disfigurement or damage. Is gender reassignment surgery mutilation? NO." If it's done against your will, YES. "Is male circumcision mutilation? NO." If it's done without your consent, YES. "Is female circumcision mutilation? YES, any of the forms." If the woman chooses to do it, NO. Though I can't imagine why any woman would. The point is that any modification to genitals is wrong unless the person themselves is choosing to do it. There are exceptions where medical issues make it necessary, but as a general practice it should be stopped. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And going back to the word mutilation, there is no disfigurement or damage." Of course there is a disfigurement. Circumcised penises don't look like they should. You're just not seeing a disfigurement because it's been normalised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mutilation - disfigurement or damage. Is gender reassignment surgery mutilation? NO. Is male circumcision mutilation? NO. Is female circumcision mutilation? YES, any of the forms. For some (extremely right foreskin) it’s a health necessity. Anything else it’s not. It’s mutilation. Now if adults want to have it done, that’s their call. But having your child circumcised is abhorrent. There are millions who'd disagree. If I was Jewish, my son would never have had to go through the ordeal at 2 years old! And going back to the word mutilation, there is no disfigurement or damage. No damage? Cutting a bit off that you were born with is damage. As I say, adults can do as they please - but anything that isn’t medically necessary should not men inflicted on children. Even getting infants ears pierced (and I speak as someone with several piercings) is awful. Your body is your own, and it’s not for anyone, including parents, to change it. So on that basis, removal of the appendix must be mutilation. The appendix is removed for medical reasons, just like a tight foreskin. Parents aren’t getting their kids appendixes out for no reason without permission, are they? " Just relating removal of appendix with your "Cutting a bit off that you were born with is damage." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point is that any modification to genitals is wrong unless the person themselves is choosing to do it. There are exceptions where medical issues make it necessary, but as a general practice it should be stopped." This - 100% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know for sure that my values are totally at odds with Islamic values. Similarly, most Western liberal values are are odds with Islamic values too." Why do you say ‘most western liberal values’ - which quite rightly recognises that we have a wide scale of values in the west, but then say ‘Islamic values’ like there is no variance? Do you believe that all followers of Islam have the same values? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And going back to the word mutilation, there is no disfigurement or damage. Of course there is a disfigurement. Circumcised penises don't look like they should. You're just not seeing a disfigurement because it's been normalised." In part because during the 70s and 80s the majority of US male pornstars were circumcised. So it was what we saw! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know for sure that my values are totally at odds with Islamic values. Similarly, most Western liberal values are are odds with Islamic values too. Why do you say ‘most western liberal values’ - which quite rightly recognises that we have a wide scale of values in the west, but then say ‘Islamic values’ like there is no variance? Do you believe that all followers of Islam have the same values? " I meant liberalism is a combination of multiple values and most of these values go against fundamental Islamic values. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I meant liberalism is a combination of multiple values and most of these values go against fundamental Islamic values." Once you remove the shouty and intolerant individuals like the OP, having a moral compass, even if you believe it's based on a man-made sky-fairy, makes for good people. Part of liberalism is recognising people's right to believe in things you don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know for sure that my values are totally at odds with Islamic values. Similarly, most Western liberal values are are odds with Islamic values too. Why do you say ‘most western liberal values’ - which quite rightly recognises that we have a wide scale of values in the west, but then say ‘Islamic values’ like there is no variance? Do you believe that all followers of Islam have the same values? " The more interesting point is whether Islamic values become a threat when those communities reach a critical mass in a liberal society. There is both right-wing alarmism at play in a question like this, but several concerning precedents. The Guardian addresses the liberal vs Muslim issue in Hamtrack. ‘A sense of betrayal’: liberal dismay as Muslim-led US city bans Pride flags https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know for sure that my values are totally at odds with Islamic values. Similarly, most Western liberal values are are odds with Islamic values too. Why do you say ‘most western liberal values’ - which quite rightly recognises that we have a wide scale of values in the west, but then say ‘Islamic values’ like there is no variance? Do you believe that all followers of Islam have the same values? The more interesting point is whether Islamic values become a threat when those communities reach a critical mass in a liberal society. There is both right-wing alarmism at play in a question like this, but several concerning precedents. The Guardian addresses the liberal vs Muslim issue in Hamtrack. ‘A sense of betrayal’: liberal dismay as Muslim-led US city bans Pride flags https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned " Tolerance for the intolerant has to stop. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I meant liberalism is a combination of multiple values and most of these values go against fundamental Islamic values. Once you remove the shouty and intolerant individuals like the OP, having a moral compass, even if you believe it's based on a man-made sky-fairy, makes for good people. Part of liberalism is recognising people's right to believe in things you don't." The conflict between liberalism and religious values show up when people following a religion have values that encroach on other people's rights. This what leads to the whole tolerance to intolerance paradox. Liberalism allows to criticise and mock religious values. But try that with Islam and you will see why they aren't incompatible. Then Islamic values of what women must wear or how gays should be treated goes far beyond their own rights. Not saying that other religions don't have the problem. But most of them have gone soft over the past decades thanks to reformers within the religion. I am ok with an individual following religious values that focus on their own behaviour. It conflicts with liberalism the moment their values start going beyond self and they start forcing them on others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But try that with Islam and you will see why they aren't incompatible. Then Islamic values of what women must wear or how gays should be treated goes far beyond their own rights. Not saying that other religions don't have the problem. But most of them have gone soft over the past decades thanks to reformers within the religion. " You’re applying a double standard, suggesting that there are no ‘soft’ believers of Islam. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But try that with Islam and you will see why they aren't incompatible. Then Islamic values of what women must wear or how gays should be treated goes far beyond their own rights. Not saying that other religions don't have the problem. But most of them have gone soft over the past decades thanks to reformers within the religion. You’re applying a double standard, suggesting that there are no ‘soft’ believers of Islam." I never said that. There are many soft believers. But there are a number of hard believers, significant enough that it affects your personal freedom. If a teacher who drew the forbidden picture is still living in hiding, it means we have have already crossed the threshold and begun losing our personal rights. Then you have politicians like Naz Shah with lot of support who are openly asking for blasphemy laws. After a critical mass of population is reached, the power hungry politicians would do everything to appease them and win their votes. I personally wouldn't want to live in a society like that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know for sure that my values are totally at odds with Islamic values. Similarly, most Western liberal values are are odds with Islamic values too. Why do you say ‘most western liberal values’ - which quite rightly recognises that we have a wide scale of values in the west, but then say ‘Islamic values’ like there is no variance? Do you believe that all followers of Islam have the same values? The more interesting point is whether Islamic values become a threat when those communities reach a critical mass in a liberal society. There is both right-wing alarmism at play in a question like this, but several concerning precedents. The Guardian addresses the liberal vs Muslim issue in Hamtrack. ‘A sense of betrayal’: liberal dismay as Muslim-led US city bans Pride flags https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned Tolerance for the intolerant has to stop." It is a full time job for the progressive liberals, they won’t take kindly to your suggestion of removing their virtue signalling | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know for sure that my values are totally at odds with Islamic values. Similarly, most Western liberal values are are odds with Islamic values too. Why do you say ‘most western liberal values’ - which quite rightly recognises that we have a wide scale of values in the west, but then say ‘Islamic values’ like there is no variance? Do you believe that all followers of Islam have the same values? The more interesting point is whether Islamic values become a threat when those communities reach a critical mass in a liberal society. There is both right-wing alarmism at play in a question like this, but several concerning precedents. The Guardian addresses the liberal vs Muslim issue in Hamtrack. ‘A sense of betrayal’: liberal dismay as Muslim-led US city bans Pride flags https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned Tolerance for the intolerant has to stop. It is a full time job for the progressive liberals, they won’t take kindly to your suggestion of removing their virtue signalling " And the robed men opened the gates to the barbarians. Sack of Rome... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So with that in mind I can accept that if I chose to live in, Iran for example, then I should expect to conform (or at very least given huge respect to) the culture and societal norms of that country. But for me that works both ways. If you decide to make your home in the liberal west, you need to respect our culture, our laws, and our way of life. I am happy for you to worship and be you but if you do not respect us being us, then fuck off!" This, exactly this, is how it should be. No compromise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So naturally I welcome a diverse community and social melting pot. I see many advantages of being a “citizen of the world” soaking up other cultures, food, clothes, traditions, history. It is fascinating. But don’t tell me the way I live my life is wrong. You can fuck off. Respect me and I will respect you. Simple! " This is essentially the crux of the matter. Be it Islam, Christianity, homophobes, prudes or anything else - we’ve all got to share this rock, and I’m happy to let you lead your life if you let me lead mine. When it comes time to vote, or voice my opinion, I’ll do so. I’ll have my say - but on a daily basis, the grown ups of the world can generally get along. It’s the children who want to interfere with others business. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So naturally I welcome a diverse community and social melting pot. I see many advantages of being a “citizen of the world” soaking up other cultures, food, clothes, traditions, history. It is fascinating. But don’t tell me the way I live my life is wrong. You can fuck off. Respect me and I will respect you. Simple! This is essentially the crux of the matter. Be it Islam, Christianity, homophobes, prudes or anything else - we’ve all got to share this rock, and I’m happy to let you lead your life if you let me lead mine. When it comes time to vote, or voice my opinion, I’ll do so. I’ll have my say - but on a daily basis, the grown ups of the world can generally get along. It’s the children who want to interfere with others business. " Yep the children (or those adult men who want 13yr old child brides)
Sorry couldn’t help myself!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know for sure that my values are totally at odds with Islamic values. Similarly, most Western liberal values are are odds with Islamic values too. Why do you say ‘most western liberal values’ - which quite rightly recognises that we have a wide scale of values in the west, but then say ‘Islamic values’ like there is no variance? Do you believe that all followers of Islam have the same values? The more interesting point is whether Islamic values become a threat when those communities reach a critical mass in a liberal society. There is both right-wing alarmism at play in a question like this, but several concerning precedents. The Guardian addresses the liberal vs Muslim issue in Hamtrack. ‘A sense of betrayal’: liberal dismay as Muslim-led US city bans Pride flags https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned Tolerance for the intolerant has to stop. It is a full time job for the progressive liberals, they won’t take kindly to your suggestion of removing their virtue signalling " Progressives are just useful idiots for certain groups. One doesn't have to go as far as Canada to see it. Remember when Muslim groups organised protests against LGBT education in Birmingham? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47613578 The silence from the pro-LGBT progressives on this matter at that time was deafening. They were all busy fighting JK Rowling on the internet while remaining silent on a ground issue that was happening to the LGBT community. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So naturally I welcome a diverse community and social melting pot. I see many advantages of being a “citizen of the world” soaking up other cultures, food, clothes, traditions, history. It is fascinating. But don’t tell me the way I live my life is wrong. You can fuck off. Respect me and I will respect you. Simple! This is essentially the crux of the matter. Be it Islam, Christianity, homophobes, prudes or anything else - we’ve all got to share this rock, and I’m happy to let you lead your life if you let me lead mine. When it comes time to vote, or voice my opinion, I’ll do so. I’ll have my say - but on a daily basis, the grown ups of the world can generally get along. It’s the children who want to interfere with others business. Yep the children (or those adult men who want 13yr old child brides)
Sorry couldn’t help myself!!!"And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know for sure that my values are totally at odds with Islamic values. Similarly, most Western liberal values are are odds with Islamic values too. Why do you say ‘most western liberal values’ - which quite rightly recognises that we have a wide scale of values in the west, but then say ‘Islamic values’ like there is no variance? Do you believe that all followers of Islam have the same values? The more interesting point is whether Islamic values become a threat when those communities reach a critical mass in a liberal society. There is both right-wing alarmism at play in a question like this, but several concerning precedents. The Guardian addresses the liberal vs Muslim issue in Hamtrack. ‘A sense of betrayal’: liberal dismay as Muslim-led US city bans Pride flags https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned Tolerance for the intolerant has to stop. It is a full time job for the progressive liberals, they won’t take kindly to your suggestion of removing their virtue signalling Progressives are just useful idiots for certain groups. One doesn't have to go as far as Canada to see it. Remember when Muslim groups organised protests against LGBT education in Birmingham? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47613578 The silence from the pro-LGBT progressives on this matter at that time was deafening. They were all busy fighting JK Rowling on the internet while remaining silent on a ground issue that was happening to the LGBT community." Not read the article but from the gist of your post…therein lies the paradox. In the liberal west we expect freedom of speech. So where do we draw the line? I don’t know the answer. Maybe I should read the article but I would say if the protest could be classed a “hate speech” then lock them up because that is being detrimental to the LGBTQ+ community. Because you could be damn sure if the LGBTQ+ community protested against Muslim education there would be outcry from Muslims! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know for sure that my values are totally at odds with Islamic values. Similarly, most Western liberal values are are odds with Islamic values too. Why do you say ‘most western liberal values’ - which quite rightly recognises that we have a wide scale of values in the west, but then say ‘Islamic values’ like there is no variance? Do you believe that all followers of Islam have the same values? The more interesting point is whether Islamic values become a threat when those communities reach a critical mass in a liberal society. There is both right-wing alarmism at play in a question like this, but several concerning precedents. The Guardian addresses the liberal vs Muslim issue in Hamtrack. ‘A sense of betrayal’: liberal dismay as Muslim-led US city bans Pride flags https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned Tolerance for the intolerant has to stop. It is a full time job for the progressive liberals, they won’t take kindly to your suggestion of removing their virtue signalling Progressives are just useful idiots for certain groups. One doesn't have to go as far as Canada to see it. Remember when Muslim groups organised protests against LGBT education in Birmingham? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47613578 The silence from the pro-LGBT progressives on this matter at that time was deafening. They were all busy fighting JK Rowling on the internet while remaining silent on a ground issue that was happening to the LGBT community. Not read the article but from the gist of your post…therein lies the paradox. In the liberal west we expect freedom of speech. So where do we draw the line? I don’t know the answer. Maybe I should read the article but I would say if the protest could be classed a “hate speech” then lock them up because that is being detrimental to the LGBTQ+ community. Because you could be damn sure if the LGBTQ+ community protested against Muslim education there would be outcry from Muslims!" I believe in freedom of speech too. I don't expect progressives to ban their ability to protest. I expect progressives to openly tell the Muslims that the rights of homosexuals are more important to them than their Islamic values. There was absolutely no response to this from the progressives. Do you think they would have remained silent if JK Rowling was leading the protests? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. " Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know for sure that my values are totally at odds with Islamic values. Similarly, most Western liberal values are are odds with Islamic values too. Why do you say ‘most western liberal values’ - which quite rightly recognises that we have a wide scale of values in the west, but then say ‘Islamic values’ like there is no variance? Do you believe that all followers of Islam have the same values? The more interesting point is whether Islamic values become a threat when those communities reach a critical mass in a liberal society. There is both right-wing alarmism at play in a question like this, but several concerning precedents. The Guardian addresses the liberal vs Muslim issue in Hamtrack. ‘A sense of betrayal’: liberal dismay as Muslim-led US city bans Pride flags https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned Tolerance for the intolerant has to stop. It is a full time job for the progressive liberals, they won’t take kindly to your suggestion of removing their virtue signalling Progressives are just useful idiots for certain groups. One doesn't have to go as far as Canada to see it. Remember when Muslim groups organised protests against LGBT education in Birmingham? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47613578 The silence from the pro-LGBT progressives on this matter at that time was deafening. They were all busy fighting JK Rowling on the internet while remaining silent on a ground issue that was happening to the LGBT community. Not read the article but from the gist of your post…therein lies the paradox. In the liberal west we expect freedom of speech. So where do we draw the line? I don’t know the answer. Maybe I should read the article but I would say if the protest could be classed a “hate speech” then lock them up because that is being detrimental to the LGBTQ+ community. Because you could be damn sure if the LGBTQ+ community protested against Muslim education there would be outcry from Muslims!" With a phone call and the magic word, base, base, base there would be a crowd in minutes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’?" drawing a pic of the messenger of the sky fairy is wrong, but calling the one sending the message a sky fairy is ok. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? drawing a pic of the messenger of the sky fairy is wrong, but calling the one sending the message a sky fairy is ok. "If someone can prove that sky-fairies (even one sky-fairy) are real, I’ll stop calling them sky-fairies and use their name | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’?" "Can't handle" in this context probably doesn't mean "gets upset". It likely means "call for the death of someone", and actually try it. Everyone has the right to be offended and get upset. Muslims are completely justified in hating how many people treat them. People like the OP here add fuel to that distrust, fear and hatred, even if they're the vocal and aggressive minority. But calling for violence (which more than a couple do) is a line that shouldn't be crossed. The issue is often more cultural than religious, too. Same religion, different culture - contrast Kurds with Yemenites, or Malaysia with Morocco. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? drawing a pic of the messenger of the sky fairy is wrong, but calling the one sending the message a sky fairy is ok.
If someone can prove that sky-fairies (even one sky-fairy) are real, I’ll stop calling them sky-fairies and use their name "Is drawing a pic of the sky fairy messenger wrong in your opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I expect progressives to openly tell the Muslims that the rights of homosexuals are more important to them than their Islamic values. " So surely you mean “as important” not “more important”? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? drawing a pic of the messenger of the sky fairy is wrong, but calling the one sending the message a sky fairy is ok.
If someone can prove that sky-fairies (even one sky-fairy) are real, I’ll stop calling them sky-fairies and use their name
Is drawing a pic of the sky fairy messenger wrong in your opinion.
"I don’t think it’s particularly wrong. I think it would be disrespectful to do it in the wrong environment, certainly. Like I can rant for hours about what nonsense organised religion is, but it’d be disrespectful to do it outside a Church or Mosque. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? drawing a pic of the messenger of the sky fairy is wrong, but calling the one sending the message a sky fairy is ok.
If someone can prove that sky-fairies (even one sky-fairy) are real, I’ll stop calling them sky-fairies and use their name
Is drawing a pic of the sky fairy messenger wrong in your opinion.
"Surely in the liberal west with freedom of speech he is allowed to call all deities sky fairies without worrying a group of people will call for him to be killed? I’d say it is favourable for a muslim, or christian, or jew, or hindu etc to sit down and explain that having their God(s) called sky fairies upsets them and they would prefer not to be ridiculed rather than call for murder. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? drawing a pic of the messenger of the sky fairy is wrong, but calling the one sending the message a sky fairy is ok.
If someone can prove that sky-fairies (even one sky-fairy) are real, I’ll stop calling them sky-fairies and use their name
Is drawing a pic of the sky fairy messenger wrong in your opinion.
I don’t think it’s particularly wrong. I think it would be disrespectful to do it in the wrong environment, certainly. Like I can rant for hours about what nonsense organised religion is, but it’d be disrespectful to do it outside a Church or Mosque." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’?" Being upset is fine. You can condemn the act. But you can't send death threats for doing so. If you go to street and burn all the religious books, which of these books do you think will put your life in danger? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? drawing a pic of the messenger of the sky fairy is wrong, but calling the one sending the message a sky fairy is ok.
If someone can prove that sky-fairies (even one sky-fairy) are real, I’ll stop calling them sky-fairies and use their name
Is drawing a pic of the sky fairy messenger wrong in your opinion.
I don’t think it’s particularly wrong. I think it would be disrespectful to do it in the wrong environment, certainly. Like I can rant for hours about what nonsense organised religion is, but it’d be disrespectful to do it outside a Church or Mosque.
"But everyone who has had death threats or been kilked for so called disrespecting the sky fairy never did it outside a mosque. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? Being upset is fine. You can condemn the act. But you can't send death threats for doing so. If you go to street and burn all the religious books, which of these books do you think will put your life in danger?" And we’re back to individuals, aren’t we? Would all Muslims send death threats, or some? Some Christians have given death threats to those who work in abortion clinics (Google it). It’s unfair to tar all members of a particular religion with the same brush. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don’t think it’s particularly wrong. I think it would be disrespectful to do it in the wrong environment, certainly. Like I can rant for hours about what nonsense organised religion is, but it’d be disrespectful to do it outside a Church or Mosque." This in a nutshell..
Respect, tolerance and common sense seem to be pushed aside with some in their 'right' to express their outrage at the minutiae of someone else's chosen belief, the majority of whatever the name of the book..
Live and let live perhaps, nothing ever gets solved by division and ranting at someone that their thing is wrong because..
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? drawing a pic of the messenger of the sky fairy is wrong, but calling the one sending the message a sky fairy is ok.
If someone can prove that sky-fairies (even one sky-fairy) are real, I’ll stop calling them sky-fairies and use their name
Is drawing a pic of the sky fairy messenger wrong in your opinion.
I don’t think it’s particularly wrong. I think it would be disrespectful to do it in the wrong environment, certainly. Like I can rant for hours about what nonsense organised religion is, but it’d be disrespectful to do it outside a Church or Mosque.
But everyone who has had death threats or been kilked for so called disrespecting the sky fairy never did it outside a mosque. "Indeed, a drawing in a magazine is enough to bring the deaths of 12 people…. The issue is extremism, the most extreme is so extreme they take life for what I and many others consider a trivial matter, working out the middle ground is particularly hard. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? drawing a pic of the messenger of the sky fairy is wrong, but calling the one sending the message a sky fairy is ok.
If someone can prove that sky-fairies (even one sky-fairy) are real, I’ll stop calling them sky-fairies and use their name
Is drawing a pic of the sky fairy messenger wrong in your opinion.
I don’t think it’s particularly wrong. I think it would be disrespectful to do it in the wrong environment, certainly. Like I can rant for hours about what nonsense organised religion is, but it’d be disrespectful to do it outside a Church or Mosque.
But everyone who has had death threats or been kilked for so called disrespecting the sky fairy never did it outside a mosque.
Indeed, a drawing in a magazine is enough to bring the deaths of 12 people….
The issue is extremism, the most extreme is so extreme they take life for what I and many others consider a trivial matter, working out the middle ground is particularly hard."Maybe this will help some. Dr Dr my brother thinks he is a chicken. Dr thinks for a moment, and says hand him in. Don't be stupid I need the eggs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? Being upset is fine. You can condemn the act. But you can't send death threats for doing so. If you go to street and burn all the religious books, which of these books do you think will put your life in danger? And we’re back to individuals, aren’t we? Would all Muslims send death threats, or some? Some Christians have given death threats to those who work in abortion clinics (Google it). It’s unfair to tar all members of a particular religion with the same brush." We are back to my original point that not all Muslims have to be violent. A reasonable number of people with extremist views are enough to take away your rights. In fact they have already taken away your rights. The Batley teacher is still in hiding. If you drew the picture, you will be in hiding too. This means you have lost the right. For any religion, reforms must happen from within. That's how other religions became soft in recent decades. It's hard for that to happen in Islam because, a reformer will be mostly killed at some point. Salman Rushdie was attacked for a book he wrote three decades back. Multiple translators of the book around the world have been killed because they translated that book. So don't compare the threat levels of Islam with other religions. You talk about "soft Muslims". How many of them would go and openly fight with their family members about people's rights to criticise and mock their religion even if it offends them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? Being upset is fine. You can condemn the act. But you can't send death threats for doing so. If you go to street and burn all the religious books, which of these books do you think will put your life in danger? And we’re back to individuals, aren’t we? Would all Muslims send death threats, or some? Some Christians have given death threats to those who work in abortion clinics (Google it). It’s unfair to tar all members of a particular religion with the same brush. We are back to my original point that not all Muslims have to be violent. A reasonable number of people with extremist views are enough to take away your rights. In fact they have already taken away your rights. The Batley teacher is still in hiding. If you drew the picture, you will be in hiding too. This means you have lost the right. For any religion, reforms must happen from within. That's how other religions became soft in recent decades. It's hard for that to happen in Islam because, a reformer will be mostly killed at some point. Salman Rushdie was attacked for a book he wrote three decades back. Multiple translators of the book around the world have been killed because they translated that book. So don't compare the threat levels of Islam with other religions. You talk about "soft Muslims". How many of them would go and openly fight with their family members about people's rights to criticise and mock their religion even if it offends them?" And you don’t seem to accept that *all* religions have extremists. You’ve got a particular problem with Islam. I get it, I understand it (we get fed anti-Islam news more than any other religion and some parts of the religion certainly don’t help matters). I think they’re all equally ludicrous and all equally dangerous. All equally preying on the needy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? Being upset is fine. You can condemn the act. But you can't send death threats for doing so. If you go to street and burn all the religious books, which of these books do you think will put your life in danger? And we’re back to individuals, aren’t we? Would all Muslims send death threats, or some? Some Christians have given death threats to those who work in abortion clinics (Google it). It’s unfair to tar all members of a particular religion with the same brush. We are back to my original point that not all Muslims have to be violent. A reasonable number of people with extremist views are enough to take away your rights. In fact they have already taken away your rights. The Batley teacher is still in hiding. If you drew the picture, you will be in hiding too. This means you have lost the right. For any religion, reforms must happen from within. That's how other religions became soft in recent decades. It's hard for that to happen in Islam because, a reformer will be mostly killed at some point. Salman Rushdie was attacked for a book he wrote three decades back. Multiple translators of the book around the world have been killed because they translated that book. So don't compare the threat levels of Islam with other religions. You talk about "soft Muslims". How many of them would go and openly fight with their family members about people's rights to criticise and mock their religion even if it offends them? And you don’t seem to accept that *all* religions have extremists. You’ve got a particular problem with Islam. I get it, I understand it (we get fed anti-Islam news more than any other religion and some parts of the religion certainly don’t help matters). I think they’re all equally ludicrous and all equally dangerous. All equally preying on the needy. " Do we get fed or are there more extremists in certain religions in this country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? Being upset is fine. You can condemn the act. But you can't send death threats for doing so. If you go to street and burn all the religious books, which of these books do you think will put your life in danger? And we’re back to individuals, aren’t we? Would all Muslims send death threats, or some? Some Christians have given death threats to those who work in abortion clinics (Google it). It’s unfair to tar all members of a particular religion with the same brush. We are back to my original point that not all Muslims have to be violent. A reasonable number of people with extremist views are enough to take away your rights. In fact they have already taken away your rights. The Batley teacher is still in hiding. If you drew the picture, you will be in hiding too. This means you have lost the right. For any religion, reforms must happen from within. That's how other religions became soft in recent decades. It's hard for that to happen in Islam because, a reformer will be mostly killed at some point. Salman Rushdie was attacked for a book he wrote three decades back. Multiple translators of the book around the world have been killed because they translated that book. So don't compare the threat levels of Islam with other religions. You talk about "soft Muslims". How many of them would go and openly fight with their family members about people's rights to criticise and mock their religion even if it offends them? And you don’t seem to accept that *all* religions have extremists. You’ve got a particular problem with Islam. I get it, I understand it (we get fed anti-Islam news more than any other religion and some parts of the religion certainly don’t help matters). I think they’re all equally ludicrous and all equally dangerous. All equally preying on the needy. Do we get fed or are there more extremists in certain religions in this country?" I have no idea on numbers, do you? Based upon my experience, where I’ve not met anyone of any religion that I would describe as an ‘extremist’, I would suggest the the problem is exaggerated by media sensationalism and people’s natural sensitivities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? Being upset is fine. You can condemn the act. But you can't send death threats for doing so. If you go to street and burn all the religious books, which of these books do you think will put your life in danger? And we’re back to individuals, aren’t we? Would all Muslims send death threats, or some? Some Christians have given death threats to those who work in abortion clinics (Google it). It’s unfair to tar all members of a particular religion with the same brush. We are back to my original point that not all Muslims have to be violent. A reasonable number of people with extremist views are enough to take away your rights. In fact they have already taken away your rights. The Batley teacher is still in hiding. If you drew the picture, you will be in hiding too. This means you have lost the right. For any religion, reforms must happen from within. That's how other religions became soft in recent decades. It's hard for that to happen in Islam because, a reformer will be mostly killed at some point. Salman Rushdie was attacked for a book he wrote three decades back. Multiple translators of the book around the world have been killed because they translated that book. So don't compare the threat levels of Islam with other religions. You talk about "soft Muslims". How many of them would go and openly fight with their family members about people's rights to criticise and mock their religion even if it offends them? And you don’t seem to accept that *all* religions have extremists. You’ve got a particular problem with Islam. I get it, I understand it (we get fed anti-Islam news more than any other religion and some parts of the religion certainly don’t help matters). I think they’re all equally ludicrous and all equally dangerous. All equally preying on the needy. Do we get fed or are there more extremists in certain religions in this country? I have no idea on numbers, do you? Based upon my experience, where I’ve not met anyone of any religion that I would describe as an ‘extremist’, I would suggest the the problem is exaggerated by media sensationalism and people’s natural sensitivities. " No I haven't got a clue. I'm bemused at you suggesting 'we get fed anti-islam news' when as you've stated you have bo idea on proportionality. It could very well be that extreme Islam is higher in volume than extreme others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? Being upset is fine. You can condemn the act. But you can't send death threats for doing so. If you go to street and burn all the religious books, which of these books do you think will put your life in danger? And we’re back to individuals, aren’t we? Would all Muslims send death threats, or some? Some Christians have given death threats to those who work in abortion clinics (Google it). It’s unfair to tar all members of a particular religion with the same brush. We are back to my original point that not all Muslims have to be violent. A reasonable number of people with extremist views are enough to take away your rights. In fact they have already taken away your rights. The Batley teacher is still in hiding. If you drew the picture, you will be in hiding too. This means you have lost the right. For any religion, reforms must happen from within. That's how other religions became soft in recent decades. It's hard for that to happen in Islam because, a reformer will be mostly killed at some point. Salman Rushdie was attacked for a book he wrote three decades back. Multiple translators of the book around the world have been killed because they translated that book. So don't compare the threat levels of Islam with other religions. You talk about "soft Muslims". How many of them would go and openly fight with their family members about people's rights to criticise and mock their religion even if it offends them? And you don’t seem to accept that *all* religions have extremists. You’ve got a particular problem with Islam. I get it, I understand it (we get fed anti-Islam news more than any other religion and some parts of the religion certainly don’t help matters). I think they’re all equally ludicrous and all equally dangerous. All equally preying on the needy. Do we get fed or are there more extremists in certain religions in this country? I have no idea on numbers, do you? Based upon my experience, where I’ve not met anyone of any religion that I would describe as an ‘extremist’, I would suggest the the problem is exaggerated by media sensationalism and people’s natural sensitivities. No I haven't got a clue. I'm bemused at you suggesting 'we get fed anti-islam news' when as you've stated you have bo idea on proportionality. It could very well be that extreme Islam is higher in volume than extreme others. " It could be. Or it could be simply more vocal. Or more focussed on the wake of 9/11 and other attacks. I wasn’t around in the 70’s and the troubles but I know there was a fear and ‘othering’ of Irish folk that lived into the 80’s. It may be natural, but it doesn’t mean it’s representative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? Being upset is fine. You can condemn the act. But you can't send death threats for doing so. If you go to street and burn all the religious books, which of these books do you think will put your life in danger? And we’re back to individuals, aren’t we? Would all Muslims send death threats, or some? Some Christians have given death threats to those who work in abortion clinics (Google it). It’s unfair to tar all members of a particular religion with the same brush. We are back to my original point that not all Muslims have to be violent. A reasonable number of people with extremist views are enough to take away your rights. In fact they have already taken away your rights. The Batley teacher is still in hiding. If you drew the picture, you will be in hiding too. This means you have lost the right. For any religion, reforms must happen from within. That's how other religions became soft in recent decades. It's hard for that to happen in Islam because, a reformer will be mostly killed at some point. Salman Rushdie was attacked for a book he wrote three decades back. Multiple translators of the book around the world have been killed because they translated that book. So don't compare the threat levels of Islam with other religions. You talk about "soft Muslims". How many of them would go and openly fight with their family members about people's rights to criticise and mock their religion even if it offends them? And you don’t seem to accept that *all* religions have extremists. You’ve got a particular problem with Islam. I get it, I understand it (we get fed anti-Islam news more than any other religion and some parts of the religion certainly don’t help matters). I think they’re all equally ludicrous and all equally dangerous. All equally preying on the needy. " I accept that all religions have extremists. But numbers matter. All religions are not equally dangerous to liberal values. Let's assume 4 different people burning 4 different religious books in public. Whose life will be in danger after that? It answers your question of whether all religions are equally dangerous or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? Being upset is fine. You can condemn the act. But you can't send death threats for doing so. If you go to street and burn all the religious books, which of these books do you think will put your life in danger? And we’re back to individuals, aren’t we? Would all Muslims send death threats, or some? Some Christians have given death threats to those who work in abortion clinics (Google it). It’s unfair to tar all members of a particular religion with the same brush. We are back to my original point that not all Muslims have to be violent. A reasonable number of people with extremist views are enough to take away your rights. In fact they have already taken away your rights. The Batley teacher is still in hiding. If you drew the picture, you will be in hiding too. This means you have lost the right. For any religion, reforms must happen from within. That's how other religions became soft in recent decades. It's hard for that to happen in Islam because, a reformer will be mostly killed at some point. Salman Rushdie was attacked for a book he wrote three decades back. Multiple translators of the book around the world have been killed because they translated that book. So don't compare the threat levels of Islam with other religions. You talk about "soft Muslims". How many of them would go and openly fight with their family members about people's rights to criticise and mock their religion even if it offends them? And you don’t seem to accept that *all* religions have extremists. You’ve got a particular problem with Islam. I get it, I understand it (we get fed anti-Islam news more than any other religion and some parts of the religion certainly don’t help matters). I think they’re all equally ludicrous and all equally dangerous. All equally preying on the needy. I accept that all religions have extremists. But numbers matter. All religions are not equally dangerous to liberal values. Let's assume 4 different people burning 4 different religious books in public. Whose life will be in danger after that? It answers your question of whether all religions are equally dangerous or not." What about the number of religious people who fly drones or aircraft over towns and villages, over the past 15 years, bombing people. Which religion did the most of this? You will always be able to find an example to paint whichever religion you don't like in a bad light. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? Being upset is fine. You can condemn the act. But you can't send death threats for doing so. If you go to street and burn all the religious books, which of these books do you think will put your life in danger? And we’re back to individuals, aren’t we? Would all Muslims send death threats, or some? Some Christians have given death threats to those who work in abortion clinics (Google it). It’s unfair to tar all members of a particular religion with the same brush. We are back to my original point that not all Muslims have to be violent. A reasonable number of people with extremist views are enough to take away your rights. In fact they have already taken away your rights. The Batley teacher is still in hiding. If you drew the picture, you will be in hiding too. This means you have lost the right. For any religion, reforms must happen from within. That's how other religions became soft in recent decades. It's hard for that to happen in Islam because, a reformer will be mostly killed at some point. Salman Rushdie was attacked for a book he wrote three decades back. Multiple translators of the book around the world have been killed because they translated that book. So don't compare the threat levels of Islam with other religions. You talk about "soft Muslims". How many of them would go and openly fight with their family members about people's rights to criticise and mock their religion even if it offends them? And you don’t seem to accept that *all* religions have extremists. You’ve got a particular problem with Islam. I get it, I understand it (we get fed anti-Islam news more than any other religion and some parts of the religion certainly don’t help matters). I think they’re all equally ludicrous and all equally dangerous. All equally preying on the needy. I accept that all religions have extremists. But numbers matter. All religions are not equally dangerous to liberal values. Let's assume 4 different people burning 4 different religious books in public. Whose life will be in danger after that? It answers your question of whether all religions are equally dangerous or not." A extremist Christian fundamentalist is willing to kill for Christianity. An Islamic fundamentalist is willing to kill for Islam. There’s no difference between the two at all - agreed so far? Now you can discuss numbers, and increase numbers mean increased threat of extremism, yes - but that doesn’t make *the religion* more dangerous, as you claim. And why book burning? Isn’t our responsibility to perhaps *not* burn books - in the name of respect (as I think we all agree, mutual respect is essential) Here’s a thing I’ve learned about extremism - it needs a counterpoint, else it has nothing to use as a lightning rod. Without Extreme Islam, you don’t have Tommy Robinson. But without Tommy Robinson, extremist Islam doesn’t have a finger to point at and say ‘look how the infidels hate us’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And the old snowflakes who can't handle someone drawing a picture or damaging a book. Now see that’s you displaying a level of disrespect to others - not an equivalent level of disrespect but a level, all the same. If I damaged a bible, or other Christian artifact it would upset Christians, right? I’d expect it to upset them. Now is the answer to say ‘calm down, it’s only a book’? Or is the answer ‘let’s all try to get along and respect each other a bit more’? Being upset is fine. You can condemn the act. But you can't send death threats for doing so. If you go to street and burn all the religious books, which of these books do you think will put your life in danger? And we’re back to individuals, aren’t we? Would all Muslims send death threats, or some? Some Christians have given death threats to those who work in abortion clinics (Google it). It’s unfair to tar all members of a particular religion with the same brush. We are back to my original point that not all Muslims have to be violent. A reasonable number of people with extremist views are enough to take away your rights. In fact they have already taken away your rights. The Batley teacher is still in hiding. If you drew the picture, you will be in hiding too. This means you have lost the right. For any religion, reforms must happen from within. That's how other religions became soft in recent decades. It's hard for that to happen in Islam because, a reformer will be mostly killed at some point. Salman Rushdie was attacked for a book he wrote three decades back. Multiple translators of the book around the world have been killed because they translated that book. So don't compare the threat levels of Islam with other religions. You talk about "soft Muslims". How many of them would go and openly fight with their family members about people's rights to criticise and mock their religion even if it offends them? And you don’t seem to accept that *all* religions have extremists. You’ve got a particular problem with Islam. I get it, I understand it (we get fed anti-Islam news more than any other religion and some parts of the religion certainly don’t help matters). I think they’re all equally ludicrous and all equally dangerous. All equally preying on the needy. I accept that all religions have extremists. But numbers matter. All religions are not equally dangerous to liberal values. Let's assume 4 different people burning 4 different religious books in public. Whose life will be in danger after that? It answers your question of whether all religions are equally dangerous or not. A extremist Christian fundamentalist is willing to kill for Christianity. An Islamic fundamentalist is willing to kill for Islam. There’s no difference between the two at all - agreed so far? Now you can discuss numbers, and increase numbers mean increased threat of extremism, yes - but that doesn’t make *the religion* more dangerous, as you claim. And why book burning? Isn’t our responsibility to perhaps *not* burn books - in the name of respect (as I think we all agree, mutual respect is essential) Here’s a thing I’ve learned about extremism - it needs a counterpoint, else it has nothing to use as a lightning rod. Without Extreme Islam, you don’t have Tommy Robinson. But without Tommy Robinson, extremist Islam doesn’t have a finger to point at and say ‘look how the infidels hate us’" I asked you one simple question. Today if 4 different people burn 4 different religious books, whose life is in the most danger? I personally don't believe burning books is wrong. In India, people from a historically oppressed community burn a Hindu religious book as a ritual every year to show their angst. I don't think you will say that is wrong? If book burning hurts you, let's take another example. If I take the Satanic verses book, replace Islamic connections with Christian connections and publish it, do you think the threat on my life is same as that faced by Salman Rushdie and the other translators? You are making strawman arguments like you always do. No one said extremists don't exist in other religions. But the numbers aren't enough to take it seriously. That's why I can republish satanic verses the way I said and still go on with my life normally. But I can't do something that hurts Islamic sentiments and still go on with my life normally. So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That prick on here defending paedos in the name of Islam. He’s a great foil for the equivalent extremist Brit to get a gang together and go hunting. Are either of them representative of an entire race/creed/religion? " There are pee dow hunters out their nothing extreme about that activity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously." I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That prick on here defending paedos in the name of Islam. He’s a great foil for the equivalent extremist Brit to get a gang together and go hunting. Are either of them representative of an entire race/creed/religion? There are pee dow hunters out their nothing extreme about that activity." Except when they take the law into their own hands. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously." Serious question now, have you popped down to a mosque or religious centre to discuss this with them? It might help you to understand how they feel about Islamic extremism. I haven’t spoken at length on the topic with religious leaders, because frankly it’s not an issue that worries me that greatly - the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. " The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. Serious question now, have you popped down to a mosque or religious centre to discuss this with them? It might help you to understand how they feel about Islamic extremism. I haven’t spoken at length on the topic with religious leaders, because frankly it’s not an issue that worries me that greatly - the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote " The chance of Islamic terror impacting us is quite remote if you bendover to them and follow their rules. The moment you do something that offends them, the chances go up pretty high. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot." Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. Serious question now, have you popped down to a mosque or religious centre to discuss this with them? It might help you to understand how they feel about Islamic extremism. I haven’t spoken at length on the topic with religious leaders, because frankly it’s not an issue that worries me that greatly - the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote The chance of Islamic terror impacting us is quite remote if you bendover to them and follow their rules. The moment you do something that offends them, the chances go up pretty high." There is something about the 72 8 yr old virgins, by 9 yrs old they are married, they receive if they do a good job in the name of the sky fairy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. Serious question now, have you popped down to a mosque or religious centre to discuss this with them? It might help you to understand how they feel about Islamic extremism. I haven’t spoken at length on the topic with religious leaders, because frankly it’s not an issue that worries me that greatly - the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote The chance of Islamic terror impacting us is quite remote if you bendover to them and follow their rules. The moment you do something that offends them, the chances go up pretty high." I don’t follow Islam’s rules. I follow the rules (laws) of the UK. So far I haven’t offended anyone beyond telling them their religion is hokum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. Serious question now, have you popped down to a mosque or religious centre to discuss this with them? It might help you to understand how they feel about Islamic extremism. I haven’t spoken at length on the topic with religious leaders, because frankly it’s not an issue that worries me that greatly - the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote The chance of Islamic terror impacting us is quite remote if you bendover to them and follow their rules. The moment you do something that offends them, the chances go up pretty high. I don’t follow Islam’s rules. I follow the rules (laws) of the UK. So far I haven’t offended anyone beyond telling them their religion is hokum." Then I challenge you to go and burn their book or draw the forbidden picture in public and then tell me if "the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. " Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. Serious question now, have you popped down to a mosque or religious centre to discuss this with them? It might help you to understand how they feel about Islamic extremism. I haven’t spoken at length on the topic with religious leaders, because frankly it’s not an issue that worries me that greatly - the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote The chance of Islamic terror impacting us is quite remote if you bendover to them and follow their rules. The moment you do something that offends them, the chances go up pretty high. I don’t follow Islam’s rules. I follow the rules (laws) of the UK. So far I haven’t offended anyone beyond telling them their religion is hokum. Then I challenge you to go and burn their book or draw the forbidden picture in public and then tell me if "the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote "" Why would I do either of those things? Would I go and throw paint over a Statue of Mary? Would I break a statue of Buddha? No. Why? Because those things are disrespectful. “Why don’t you go and burn the Koran and see what they say?” - Jesus Christ, what an argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I?" Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. Serious question now, have you popped down to a mosque or religious centre to discuss this with them? It might help you to understand how they feel about Islamic extremism. I haven’t spoken at length on the topic with religious leaders, because frankly it’s not an issue that worries me that greatly - the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote The chance of Islamic terror impacting us is quite remote if you bendover to them and follow their rules. The moment you do something that offends them, the chances go up pretty high. I don’t follow Islam’s rules. I follow the rules (laws) of the UK. So far I haven’t offended anyone beyond telling them their religion is hokum. Then I challenge you to go and burn their book or draw the forbidden picture in public and then tell me if "the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote " Why would I do either of those things? Would I go and throw paint over a Statue of Mary? Would I break a statue of Buddha? No. Why? Because those things are disrespectful. “Why don’t you go and burn the Koran and see what they say?” - Jesus Christ, what an argument. " But other people might have reasons to do so. An ex-Muslim I know would gladly burn the book if he is allowed to, because he is gay and his childhood was terrible because of Islam. We are arguing about whether liberal values are compatible with Islamic values. Liberal values allow you to do things which might offend religious people as long as there is no physical violence. But here you are telling yourself a story of why you personally wouldn't burn the book. Looks like you don't care about other people's rights to do so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now?" You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. Serious question now, have you popped down to a mosque or religious centre to discuss this with them? It might help you to understand how they feel about Islamic extremism. I haven’t spoken at length on the topic with religious leaders, because frankly it’s not an issue that worries me that greatly - the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote The chance of Islamic terror impacting us is quite remote if you bendover to them and follow their rules. The moment you do something that offends them, the chances go up pretty high. I don’t follow Islam’s rules. I follow the rules (laws) of the UK. So far I haven’t offended anyone beyond telling them their religion is hokum. Then I challenge you to go and burn their book or draw the forbidden picture in public and then tell me if "the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote " Why would I do either of those things? Would I go and throw paint over a Statue of Mary? Would I break a statue of Buddha? No. Why? Because those things are disrespectful. “Why don’t you go and burn the Koran and see what they say?” - Jesus Christ, what an argument. But other people might have reasons to do so. An ex-Muslim I know would gladly burn the book if he is allowed to, because he is gay and his childhood was terrible because of Islam. We are arguing about whether liberal values are compatible with Islamic values. Liberal values allow you to do things which might offend religious people as long as there is no physical violence. But here you are telling yourself a story of why you personally wouldn't burn the book. Looks like you don't care about other people's rights to do so?" “Where one burns books, one will soon burn people” It is not your right to burn the Koran any more than it’s an extremist’s right to burn your possessions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question?" You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. " I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. Serious question now, have you popped down to a mosque or religious centre to discuss this with them? It might help you to understand how they feel about Islamic extremism. I haven’t spoken at length on the topic with religious leaders, because frankly it’s not an issue that worries me that greatly - the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote The chance of Islamic terror impacting us is quite remote if you bendover to them and follow their rules. The moment you do something that offends them, the chances go up pretty high. I don’t follow Islam’s rules. I follow the rules (laws) of the UK. So far I haven’t offended anyone beyond telling them their religion is hokum. Then I challenge you to go and burn their book or draw the forbidden picture in public and then tell me if "the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote " Why would I do either of those things? Would I go and throw paint over a Statue of Mary? Would I break a statue of Buddha? No. Why? Because those things are disrespectful. “Why don’t you go and burn the Koran and see what they say?” - Jesus Christ, what an argument. But other people might have reasons to do so. An ex-Muslim I know would gladly burn the book if he is allowed to, because he is gay and his childhood was terrible because of Islam. We are arguing about whether liberal values are compatible with Islamic values. Liberal values allow you to do things which might offend religious people as long as there is no physical violence. But here you are telling yourself a story of why you personally wouldn't burn the book. Looks like you don't care about other people's rights to do so? “Where one burns books, one will soon burn people” It is not your right to burn the Koran any more than it’s an extremist’s right to burn your possessions. " It is my right to burn a koran I bought. I can burn my own stuff. I can draw any picture I want on canvas I bought with painting supplies I bought. It's laughable that I have to teach you this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements." You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. " Would you burn a book about under ade sex and reading the book.gives you right to commit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. Serious question now, have you popped down to a mosque or religious centre to discuss this with them? It might help you to understand how they feel about Islamic extremism. I haven’t spoken at length on the topic with religious leaders, because frankly it’s not an issue that worries me that greatly - the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote The chance of Islamic terror impacting us is quite remote if you bendover to them and follow their rules. The moment you do something that offends them, the chances go up pretty high. I don’t follow Islam’s rules. I follow the rules (laws) of the UK. So far I haven’t offended anyone beyond telling them their religion is hokum. Then I challenge you to go and burn their book or draw the forbidden picture in public and then tell me if "the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote " Why would I do either of those things? Would I go and throw paint over a Statue of Mary? Would I break a statue of Buddha? No. Why? Because those things are disrespectful. “Why don’t you go and burn the Koran and see what they say?” - Jesus Christ, what an argument. But other people might have reasons to do so. An ex-Muslim I know would gladly burn the book if he is allowed to, because he is gay and his childhood was terrible because of Islam. We are arguing about whether liberal values are compatible with Islamic values. Liberal values allow you to do things which might offend religious people as long as there is no physical violence. But here you are telling yourself a story of why you personally wouldn't burn the book. Looks like you don't care about other people's rights to do so? “Where one burns books, one will soon burn people” It is not your right to burn the Koran any more than it’s an extremist’s right to burn your possessions. It is my right to burn a koran I bought. I can burn my own stuff. I can draw any picture I want on canvas I bought with painting supplies I bought. It's laughable that I have to teach you this." It’s more laughable that you think you’re teaching anything. I’ve already said in this thread that I don’t have a problem with the drawing of Mohammed - but respect dictates where and when you should do this, if you want to . Same as burning a Koran - sure, if you want to buy one and burn it in your mum’s basement you can. But would you film it and put it online? I wouldn’t burn it because it’s massively disrespectful. You wouldn’t because you’re afraid of reprisals. Two different stances there - one is respectful, and one is the act of an aggressor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. Would you burn a book about under ade sex and reading the book.gives you right to commit." What books about under age sex have you been reading? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. Would you burn a book about under ade sex and reading the book.gives you right to commit. What books about under age sex have you been reading? " THIS is an example of your conveniently ignoring the question that was asked to you. This is a terrible form of debating. You were asked a simple question. Instead of answering that, you are deflecting because the answer will show you the flaws in your argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. Would you burn a book about under ade sex and reading the book.gives you right to commit. What books about under age sex have you been reading? " The ones liberal types put in schools for young children to read. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. Would you burn a book about under ade sex and reading the book.gives you right to commit. What books about under age sex have you been reading? " It was a simple question, would you burn it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. Serious question now, have you popped down to a mosque or religious centre to discuss this with them? It might help you to understand how they feel about Islamic extremism. I haven’t spoken at length on the topic with religious leaders, because frankly it’s not an issue that worries me that greatly - the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote The chance of Islamic terror impacting us is quite remote if you bendover to them and follow their rules. The moment you do something that offends them, the chances go up pretty high. I don’t follow Islam’s rules. I follow the rules (laws) of the UK. So far I haven’t offended anyone beyond telling them their religion is hokum. Then I challenge you to go and burn their book or draw the forbidden picture in public and then tell me if "the chances of Islamic terror (or any religious extremism) directly impacting us is quite remote " Why would I do either of those things? Would I go and throw paint over a Statue of Mary? Would I break a statue of Buddha? No. Why? Because those things are disrespectful. “Why don’t you go and burn the Koran and see what they say?” - Jesus Christ, what an argument. But other people might have reasons to do so. An ex-Muslim I know would gladly burn the book if he is allowed to, because he is gay and his childhood was terrible because of Islam. We are arguing about whether liberal values are compatible with Islamic values. Liberal values allow you to do things which might offend religious people as long as there is no physical violence. But here you are telling yourself a story of why you personally wouldn't burn the book. Looks like you don't care about other people's rights to do so? “Where one burns books, one will soon burn people” It is not your right to burn the Koran any more than it’s an extremist’s right to burn your possessions. It is my right to burn a koran I bought. I can burn my own stuff. I can draw any picture I want on canvas I bought with painting supplies I bought. It's laughable that I have to teach you this. It’s more laughable that you think you’re teaching anything. I’ve already said in this thread that I don’t have a problem with the drawing of Mohammed - but respect dictates where and when you should do this, if you want to . Same as burning a Koran - sure, if you want to buy one and burn it in your mum’s basement you can. But would you film it and put it online? I wouldn’t burn it because it’s massively disrespectful. You wouldn’t because you’re afraid of reprisals. Two different stances there - one is respectful, and one is the act of an aggressor. " No one cared about whether You want to burn it or not. But someone else may do that for various reasons. It's not for you to judge. If they want to burn it, they should be able to burn it. If you really care about liberal values, you should make sure that they have the right to do it even if you don't agree with it. But apparently you don't care for other people's rights to do something of it's not the same thing you want to do too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. Would you burn a book about under ade sex and reading the book.gives you right to commit. What books about under age sex have you been reading? THIS is an example of your conveniently ignoring the question that was asked to you. This is a terrible form of debating. You were asked a simple question. Instead of answering that, you are deflecting because the answer will show you the flaws in your argument." I need context. A book about under age sex as an educational tool for children? A fiction book where a child is abused? I’m not aware of any books specifically about under age sex - maybe our missing colleague from yesterday knows some? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. Would you burn a book about under ade sex and reading the book.gives you right to commit. What books about under age sex have you been reading? It was a simple question, would you burn it?" See below re: context. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. Would you burn a book about under ade sex and reading the book.gives you right to commit. What books about under age sex have you been reading? The ones liberal types put in schools for young children to read." Sex-Ed books? Why would anyone burn them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. Would you burn a book about under ade sex and reading the book.gives you right to commit. What books about under age sex have you been reading? THIS is an example of your conveniently ignoring the question that was asked to you. This is a terrible form of debating. You were asked a simple question. Instead of answering that, you are deflecting because the answer will show you the flaws in your argument. I need context. A book about under age sex as an educational tool for children? A fiction book where a child is abused? I’m not aware of any books specifically about under age sex - maybe our missing colleague from yesterday knows some?" This is rather telling, you argue based on virtue signalling….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. Would you burn a book about under ade sex and reading the book.gives you right to commit. What books about under age sex have you been reading? THIS is an example of your conveniently ignoring the question that was asked to you. This is a terrible form of debating. You were asked a simple question. Instead of answering that, you are deflecting because the answer will show you the flaws in your argument. I need context. A book about under age sex as an educational tool for children? A fiction book where a child is abused? I’m not aware of any books specifically about under age sex - maybe our missing colleague from yesterday knows some?" Do you really believe that such do not exist? It's really not that hard to answer his question. If there is a book promoting pedophilia, is it ok to burn it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. Would you burn a book about under ade sex and reading the book.gives you right to commit. What books about under age sex have you been reading? The ones liberal types put in schools for young children to read. Sex-Ed books? Why would anyone burn them? " Quiet a few youtube videos of disgusted parents reading from said books their children have access to infront if school boards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. Would you burn a book about under ade sex and reading the book.gives you right to commit. What books about under age sex have you been reading? THIS is an example of your conveniently ignoring the question that was asked to you. This is a terrible form of debating. You were asked a simple question. Instead of answering that, you are deflecting because the answer will show you the flaws in your argument. I need context. A book about under age sex as an educational tool for children? A fiction book where a child is abused? I’m not aware of any books specifically about under age sex - maybe our missing colleague from yesterday knows some? This is rather telling, you argue based on virtue signalling….." No, I argue based upon logic. It’s ludicrous to say ‘would you burn a book about under age sex’ and not describe the context further. Surely even you can see that? (Also, where was the virtue signalling?) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. Would you burn a book about under ade sex and reading the book.gives you right to commit. What books about under age sex have you been reading? The ones liberal types put in schools for young children to read. Sex-Ed books? Why would anyone burn them? Quiet a few youtube videos of disgusted parents reading from said books their children have access to infront if school boards." Do you think sex education in school is bad? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. Would you burn a book about under ade sex and reading the book.gives you right to commit. What books about under age sex have you been reading? THIS is an example of your conveniently ignoring the question that was asked to you. This is a terrible form of debating. You were asked a simple question. Instead of answering that, you are deflecting because the answer will show you the flaws in your argument. I need context. A book about under age sex as an educational tool for children? A fiction book where a child is abused? I’m not aware of any books specifically about under age sex - maybe our missing colleague from yesterday knows some? Do you really believe that such do not exist? It's really not that hard to answer his question. If there is a book promoting pedophilia, is it ok to burn it? " There are no books that I’m aware of that ‘promote paedophilia’. We have censors and regulations against that sort of thing, do we not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. Would you burn a book about under ade sex and reading the book.gives you right to commit. What books about under age sex have you been reading? THIS is an example of your conveniently ignoring the question that was asked to you. This is a terrible form of debating. You were asked a simple question. Instead of answering that, you are deflecting because the answer will show you the flaws in your argument. I need context. A book about under age sex as an educational tool for children? A fiction book where a child is abused? I’m not aware of any books specifically about under age sex - maybe our missing colleague from yesterday knows some? This is rather telling, you argue based on virtue signalling….. No, I argue based upon logic. It’s ludicrous to say ‘would you burn a book about under age sex’ and not describe the context further. Surely even you can see that? (Also, where was the virtue signalling?)" I will leave it there but you really should know what you’re arguing so strongly about, not doing so makes it look very much like virtue signalling progressiveness | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So anyone who cares about liberal values must take the issue of Islam seriously. I don’t decry any particular flavour of extremism as worse than any other. A hate-filled bigot is a hate-filled bigot. If you think Islam is more of a risk than any other religion (or indeed non-religious extremism) then I can’t help you. I can assure you that you’re far more likely to be harmed by a non-Muslim than a Muslim, and the chances of either occurring randomly are pretty remote. The fact that you have conveniently ignored all the questions I asked you shows that you don't have an argument you make. Of course, you resort to calling people hateful bigot like what most people in your position typically do. I have given you real examples of how people writing books and drawing pictures are in hiding. But hey.. If you don't want to look at facts, I am not going to force you. IMO, Islam or any religion for that matter is just an ideology. Ideologies can be criticised. Criticising Islam doesn't make me a bigot the same way criticising capitalism/socialism doesn't make me a bigot. Did I call you a bigot, or are you misunderstanding again? Unless of course you consider yourself to be an extremist. And I have argued throughout that religions are free to be criticised. I just believe they should be done to equally. One sky-fairy is not more or less deserving than another. Different religions have different problems. I can't criticise Christianity for Hindu practices like Sati, can I? Are we agreed that I didn’t call you a bigot now? You have yet again failed to engage with the questions I asked you or any other points I made because you don't have an answer. So why should I answer this question? You have no intention of engaging, because you can’t see nor understand that your views of Islam as a whole are as skewed as an extremist’s view of the west. I pity your lack of decency. I asked you two straightforward questions, which you didn't even acknowledge. You have been trying to run away from the facts by asking random unrelated questions. And I am the one who lacks decency? Learn the basic etiquette of debate before making these statements. You think you have the right to burn books you don’t approve of. You’re no better than the ones you claim to hate so much. Would you burn a book about under ade sex and reading the book.gives you right to commit. What books about under age sex have you been reading? The ones liberal types put in schools for young children to read. Sex-Ed books? Why would anyone burn them? Quiet a few youtube videos of disgusted parents reading from said books their children have access to infront if school boards. Do you think sex education in school is bad? " Prompting under age children to engage in and have sexual intercourse, is that sex education, I am not going to tell you the age range the books are targeted at. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In a perfect world, we’ll have no religion, but the way to get there is through education, not eliminating them one by one through oppression, violence and counter-aggression." I’m going to disagree there but it is nuanced and my argument will be too blunt. Religion serves a purpose. For many it brings a degree of order and meaning to a chaotic and frankly nihilistic existence. For me, as long as “your” religious beliefs and practices have no impact on “me/others” then what is the harm? If it makes “you” happy and provides a moral code to live “your” life by, as long as that does not impact on “me/others” then again I see no harm or problem with it. The issue is when believers either try to convert or condemn non-believers. Then they can fuck off! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
