|
computer parts posted:It is indeed a problem if racists control the instruments of Western Europe. That's why we need to assume all the Arabs are backwards hicks. That doesn't even make sense. I was posting in support of the idea of using the law to help stop the more dangerous schools of thought and backwards views from taking hold in the west and against the idea of warping anti-hate statutes to protect people who hate while being a minority themselves, not whatever grand massacre or deportation or glass dome that it seems is the assumed position for anyone who isn't blindly pro-not white person.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
Sinestro posted:That doesn't even make sense. I was posting in support of the idea of using the law to help stop the more dangerous schools of thought and backwards views from taking hold in the west and against the idea of warping anti-hate statutes to protect people who hate while being a minority themselves, not whatever grand massacre or deportation or glass dome that it seems is the assumed position for anyone who isn't blindly pro-not white person. I'm sure "Warping anti-hate statutes" is a pressing issue in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Peel posted:This is getting a bit mean so I will spell it out. I don't subscribe to the "being out populated by muslims" part at all, what does bother me is the punitive behaviour ex muslims endure, an that many on this sub prefer to believe doesn't exist or is not actionable or worth doing anything about because racism exists an everyone is racist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I don't subscribe to the "being out populated by muslims" part at all, what does bother me is the punitive behaviour ex muslims endure, an that many on this sub prefer to believe doesn't exist or is not actionable or worth doing anything about because racism exists an everyone is racist. I especially like the attitude self-proclaimed progressives take by calling people such as Maajid Nawaz the equivalent of uncle tom or "sellout".
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
eurabiaaaaaAAAAA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
-gently caress it not worth it-
Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Sep 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Inshallah our infiltration of France may reach 10 percent  Foolish, infertile Euros! If only they knew what was in store once we hit the magic number...
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Inshallah our infiltration of France may reach 10 percent If they hit 20% they're officially a fifth column.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Where did I call people here totalitarian? Because unless you can quote me I think you've only succeeded in demonstrating that you don't read good. It wasn't you. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
lol at all these people worried about white people remaining pure in europe. last time europe was worth a single drat was 1750 when my ancestors last set loving foot on that blighted shithole. only been back to pwn germans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3yon2GyoiM
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:-gently caress it not worth it- Well that's nice unspecific criticism you got there. https://youtu.be/5W1XXMPgG8M
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
False Flag Rape posted:lol at all these people worried about white people remaining pure in europe.  So ethnicity is responsible for totalitarianism rather than political, economic, and religious ideologies. Sounds rational. Maybe, just maybe, much like neo-nazis, we should relentlessly counter vicious theocrats wherever their influence arises without the cultural relativist thought-police in academia and elsewhere conflating every criticism of their explicitly stated ideology with racism & bigotry under the banner of "multiculturalism". And unlike racism, religious extremism unites hatred & totalitarianism across ethnic lines. "You're going to tell me homophobia, misogyny, and anti-semitism are abhorrent views? Well, gently caress you; those are mans laws, not God's laws. Insha’Allah." This is exactly what they're saying when a few courageous progressives remaining on the ideological left in Europe under credible threats of violence say in attempt to shame them into submission & guilt. But no guys, here in D&D, my white Christian father who goes to Church once a year who said something positive about Ronald Reagan once at the dinner table during Thanksgiving is the real enemy of secular values.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 22:28
|
|
Immortan posted:
This post is a good example of why "white Christian father who goes to Church once a year who said something positive about Ronald Reagan once at the dinner table during Thanksgiving" is, in fact, the "real enemy" of secular values. Because there is a great heap of people who are eternally suspicious of Der Ewige Muslim, and this heap of people excuses "white Christian fathers who go to Church once a year who say something positive about Ronald Reagan once at the dinner table during Thanksgiving" out of hand.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Immortan posted:
Yes, correct. White American voters pose an exponentially greater threat to secularism and freedom than the most pop-eyed, shouting mullah with the longest beard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes, correct. White American voters pose an exponentially greater threat to secularism and freedom than the most pop-eyed, shouting mullah with the longest beard. I don't think White American voters are that big of a threat to secularism and freedom in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:I think you're sort of missing my point. These are people who seem to actually want to stay alive and not get involved in said extremist shitfights. That they're taking no sides in the conflict and not actively participating in the fighting suggests to me that they don't belong to the belligerent extremist groups doing the fighting or they would likely be staying put. Don't dishonestly pretend ignorance of the numerous incidents of religious extremism among migrants (the attempting lynching of a man who tore a Koran, the sudden mass-drowning of most of a boat's non-Muslim passengers by the Muslims, etc). No, it doesn't represent the majority, nor is it a good enough justification to refuse asylum to certain nationalities. But denying that it even exists just causes the average European to be pushed towards the far-right when one of these incidents does happen (and they will continue to, frequently, for years to come). TomViolence posted:Surely the point of secular, liberal society is that people may hold political and religious views you disagree with, right? Supporting sharia law (a civil framework of islamic jurisprudence that is admittedly reactionary but does not necessarily incorporate criminal law) is an entirely legitimate political position, however much we disagree with it. In a vacuum I might agree with you. In the context of a subset of the population that seeks the legalization of child and domestic abuse and the coercive disenfranchisement of women in family law, by a community that uses extra-legal means to try and force all members to remain within it and follow its laws in preference to secular laws, different story. Civilized society is not required to countenance laws that are crafted to nurture theocratic intermediary institutions. You're basically arguing that it was wrong for the courts to nullify racially-restrictive housing covenants because "not wanting black people to live in your neighborhood is an entirely legitimate political position, however much we disagree with it." Edit: But seriously though - Sedan Chair, Effectronica, Rigged Death Trap? What are your thoughts on ex-muslims? Should there be a certain amount of leniency granted to those who intimidate, threaten and/or murder them, on account of the fact that they are betraying their race by leaving the religion with which it is, according to you, synonymous? Is that an accurate representation of your views? Even if it isn't , it's closer to the truth than responding to any concern with the political attitudes of Muslim immigrants with "HITLER HITLER HITLERRRRR" Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:00
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Don't dishonestly pretend ignorance of the numerous incidents of religious extremism among migrants (the attempting lynching of a man who tore a Koran, the sudden mass-drowning of most of a boat's non-Muslim passengers by the Muslims, etc). No, it doesn't represent the majority, nor is it a good enough justification to refuse asylum to certain nationalities. But denying that it even exists just causes the average European to be pushed towards the far-right when one of these incidents does happen (and they will continue to, frequently, for years to come). I wish that God would strike down everyone who argues for hatred with reference to justice.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I don't think White American voters are that big of a threat to secularism and freedom in Europe. This is correct. So is his statement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:05
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Edit: But seriously though - Sedan Chair, Effectronica, Rigged Death Trap? What are your thoughts on ex-muslims? Should there be a certain amount of leniency granted to those who intimidate, threaten and/or murder them, on account of the fact that they are betraying their race by leaving the religion with which it is, according to you, synonymous? Is that an accurate representation of your views? Even if it isn't , it's closer to the truth than responding to any concern with the political attitudes of Muslim immigrants with "HITLER HITLER HITLERRRRR" That is not an accurate representation of my views, and I feel that people who come out with "Don't think Muslims are basically evil and atavistic? You must be in favor of legalizing murder!!" should have things which I have been told I am not allowed to discuss in this forum happen to them.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I wish that God would strike down everyone who argues for hatred with reference to justice. Well, at least you've moved on to wishing people dead by impersonal cosmic forces as opposed to wishing for the opportunity to personally kill them. That's a step forward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:10
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Well, at least you've moved on to wishing people dead by impersonal cosmic forces as opposed to wishing for the opportunity to personally kill them. That's a step forward. Excuse me, but I didn't say anything about people dying. That's a dishonest implication, much like people concluding that someone who believes Muslims are actively subverting society must also believe that this be stopped.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That is not an accurate representation of my views, and I feel that people who come out with "Don't think Muslims are basically evil and atavistic? You must be in favor of legalizing murder!!" should have things which I have been told I am not allowed to discuss in this forum happen to them. The crux of the issue is that a sizable minority of Muslims in several European countries are, in fact, in favor of murdering people for religious reasons when polled on the topic. You don't think that's relevant to the topic of whether or not Sharia law should be allowed to gain precedent and enforceability in western nations?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:17
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:The crux of the issue is that a sizable minority of Muslims in several European countries are, in fact, in favor of murdering people for religious reasons when polled on the topic. You don't think that's relevant to the topic of whether or not Sharia law should be allowed to gain precedent and enforceability in western nations? I, personally, think that Muslims should be allowed to get married in the fashion that they choose, and allowed to produce halal food and eat it, disburse their inheritance as they please, etc.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I, personally, think that Muslims should be allowed to get married in the fashion that they choose, and allowed to produce halal food and eat it, disburse their inheritance as they please, etc. Nah, if you oppose fractional reserve banking you oppose Western values.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Rigged Death Trap? What are your thoughts on ex-muslims? Should there be a certain amount of leniency granted to those who intimidate, threaten and/or murder them, on account of the fact that they are betraying their race by leaving the religion with which it is, according to you, synonymous? Is that an accurate representation of your views? Even if it isn't , it's closer to the truth than responding to any concern with the political attitudes of Muslim immigrants with "HITLER HITLER HITLERRRRR" Well poo poo I wasnt gonna enter on this but since im specifically being called out, what the hell. Yes people, even muslims, who threaten, hound and murder ex-muslims should be charged like any other member of society would be if they did the same. I sure hope they would be, considering that Im ex-muslim myself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I, personally, think that Muslims should be allowed to get married in the fashion that they choose, and allowed to produce halal food and eat it, disburse their inheritance as they please, etc. I guess the crux of the matter is whether you think Muslims should have access to a non-religious court to appeal to in case they feel that Sharia court is treating them unfairly, and whether there should be support mechanisms in place in case Sharia or extra-judicial authorities start persecuting them for doing so. It's when things go wrong that you test what the nature is of your legal framework, not when everybody's happy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:32
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I guess the crux of the matter is whether you think Muslims should have access to a non-religious court to appeal to in case they feel that Sharia court is treating them unfairly, and whether there should be support mechanisms in place in case Sharia or extra-judicial authorities start persecuting them for doing so. It's when things go wrong that you test what the nature is of your legal framework, not when everybody's happy. I don't think that there's anyone in this thread, and far, far fewer people outside of it than those who provide the basis for clobber statistics, who would actually suggest that Muslims be banned from using the ordinary court system. Even spectacular racists are unlikely to do so, I think. In fact, intimating that there's somebody who believes that seems vaguely insulting.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Listen, if I lived in France and I had to put up with an immigrant community that does poo poo like loving tournantes, I'd be a bit racist too. I mean, you know, more so. But in any case, poo poo like that, I'd say, is not an Islamic thing, but just North African culture being hideous garbage. Really, that generally seems to be the case. When you hear about terrible things happening, it seems to not really be because of the religion, as much as just some cultures being lovely, and some of those lovely cultures practicing the religion. When you get down to it, all three Abrahamic religions preach practically the same poo poo, and you drat sure never hear about Albanians or Lebanese or Emiratis stoning or raping anyone. At least I haven't. Hammurabi fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
I wasn't seriously suggesting those were the views those three posters hold, but using it as a mirror image to the hyperbole that gets directed at anybody who doesn't toe the line of cultural relativism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Hammurabi posted:Really, that generally seems to be the case. When you hear about terrible things happening, it seems to not really be because of the religion, as much as just some cultures being lovely, and some of those lovely cultures practicing the religion. When you get down to it, all three Abrahamic religions preach practically the same poo poo, and you drat sure never hear about Albanians or Lebanese or Emiratis stoning or raping anyone. At least I haven't. Strange how opponents focus on Islam in particular then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:03
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:I wasn't seriously suggesting those were the views those three posters hold, but using it as a mirror image to the hyperbole that gets directed at anybody who doesn't toe the line of cultural relativism. That's actually not what cultural relativism means. If you really opposed cultural relativism, you'd hold that it wasn't Islam that was bad, but Muslims just being inherently evil.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Hammurabi posted:but just North African culture being hideous garbage. Would you kindly gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I guess the crux of the matter is whether you think Muslims should have access to a non-religious court to appeal to in case they feel that Sharia court is treating them unfairly, and whether there should be support mechanisms in place in case Sharia or extra-judicial authorities start persecuting them for doing so. It's when things go wrong that you test what the nature is of your legal framework, not when everybody's happy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I don't think that there's anyone in this thread, and far, far fewer people outside of it than those who provide the basis for clobber statistics, who would actually suggest that Muslims be banned from using the ordinary court system. Even spectacular racists are unlikely to do so, I think. In fact, intimating that there's somebody who believes that seems vaguely insulting. Good. I didn't expect so. Now, Liberal_L33t, what else is it that is missing here? Persecution of Muslims by other Muslims is against most laws already. It seems like none of the three other posters you singled out believe what you ascribe to them, so they would not be allies to changing laws to affect this. What are the actual policies you would like to see that aren't there, or policies that are there that you would rather be gone? Hammurabi posted:Listen, if I lived in France and I had to put up with an immigrant community that does poo poo like loving tournantes, I'd be a bit racist too. I mean, you know, more so. But in any case, poo poo like that, I'd say, is not an Islamic thing, but just North African culture being hideous garbage. Are gang-rapes exclusive to North African culture? Why do you think that there needs to be a policy targeting only these gang-rapes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Why should there be sharia courts? Defend migrants from racists, but there is no reason for a state to ever secede authority like that. They want to enforce specific marriage contracts or whatever, they can do that under the existing legal system. Granting powers to community leaders on account of ethnicity or religious identity is just a way to entrench the power structures already existing in those identities, which will be used to punish apostates/opponents/outsiders within that community. But you're only giving them "power" in the sense that you're allowing people to contract through them. Are you going to ban all types of private organizations with their own arbitration systems? Are you going to ban Jews from using Rabbinical courts?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:11
|
|
rudatron posted:Why should there be sharia courts? Defend migrants from racists, but there is no reason for a state to ever secede authority like that. They want to enforce specific marriage contracts or whatever, they can do that under the existing legal system. Granting powers to community leaders on account of ethnicity or religious identity is just a way to entrench the power structures already existing in those identities, which will be used to punish apostates/opponents/outsiders within that community. You don't need to have a specifically shari'a court to oversee a marriage in Islam, but marriage is part of shari'a and allowing Muslims to marry according to shari'a thus allows shari'a legitimacy, just like allowing for halal food to be prepared or for Muslims to define their inheritance according to fiqh. In order to reject shari'a as legitimate, you cannot allow Muslims to marry, eat, or inherit as they please.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:I wasn't seriously suggesting those were the views those three posters hold, but using it as a mirror image to the hyperbole that gets directed at anybody who doesn't toe the line of cultural relativism. Honestly at this point I don't think you can break their ideology, to them religion isn't just a set of fictional ideas that contribute to a cultural identity, it is untouchable, unless you're criticizing christians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:14
|
|
Sethex posted:Honestly at this point I don't think you can break their ideology, to them religion isn't just a set of fictional ideas that contribute to a cultural identity, it is untouchable, unless you're criticizing christians. Okay, so religion is inherently fictional. I guess that means that it's actually right to kill people willy-nilly, because religions consider that immoral and religious ideas are fictional ones.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Why should there be sharia courts? Defend migrants from racists, but there is no reason for a state to ever secede authority like that. They want to enforce specific marriage contracts or whatever, they can do that under the existing legal system. Granting powers to community leaders on account of ethnicity or religious identity is just a way to entrench the power structures already existing in those identities, which will be used to punish apostates/opponents/outsiders within that community. Most racist thing posted in the thread so far, why do you advocate genocide of all muslims? I hate the white american voter. *Literally the arguments above this comment* Sethex fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, so religion is inherently fictional. I guess that means that it's actually right to kill people willy-nilly, because religions consider that immoral and religious ideas are fictional ones. Without religious morality, where do we get morals from  Effectronica posted:You don't need to have a specifically shari'a court to oversee a marriage in Islam, but marriage is part of shari'a and allowing Muslims to marry according to shari'a thus allows shari'a legitimacy, just like allowing for halal food to be prepared or for Muslims to define their inheritance according to fiqh. In order to reject shari'a as legitimate, you cannot allow Muslims to marry, eat, or inherit as they please. This...has to be satire. Tell me this is satire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:19
|
|
