Quran have been attacked

[Argus]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Then why are motions condemning ant-Semitism and an entire document dedicated to defining the rights of Jews needed?

Because of the massive, organized antisemitism efforts by so many groups on the left and extreme right.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dre said:

What would be really fun, is to put our conservative hawks and their conservative hawks in a big stadium full of swords, clubs, stones etc. WE could giggle like school girls while they bludgeon each other to death!  Imagine the amount of beer and hot dogs that could be sold at such an event?

Sure. But here's the thing, if THEIR conservatives win, and there are A WHOLE LOT MORE of them, then the first thing they're going to do to celebrate is come and teach you what you now have to do to please Allah, which is to convert or die.

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Because of the massive, organized antisemitism efforts by so many groups on the left and extreme right.

But the massive organized anti-Muslim efforts by so many on the right and extreme right should be allowed to continue without comment or condemnation? 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dre said:

No no... This is different. This would be the shit disturbers on both sides that are moving us towards a clash a civilizations, killing each other in a way that's safe for everyone else

Ratings would be off the charts... Pay per view revenue alone would be in the billions.

Too bad we couldn't establish a new island nation for you and the others on the Left. You could all build your wonderful nation free of nasty old police and nasty old military types. And the rest of us would publicly proclaim we didn't care what you did or what anyone did to you. Of course, given most taxpayers and producers are conservative, this new country would probably be a giant slum soon enough, and all the progressives would start weeping because they didn't have wifi, but if your new nation had any sort of natural resources you might make a go of it if you could find any progressive willing to exploit them - which is unlikely. More likely is that some other nation would come along from outside the West and your nation would be under new management.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

But the massive organized anti-Muslim efforts by so many on the right and extreme right should be allowed to continue without comment or condemnation? 

There is no such effort. It's a figment of your imagination. In fact, the extreme right is more likely to side with Muslims simply because, like them, the Muslim world hates Jews too.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Argus

[dialamah]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

Too bad we couldn't establish a new island nation for you and the others on the Left. You could all build your wonderful nation free of nasty old police and nasty old military types. And the rest of us would publicly proclaim we didn't care what you did or what anyone did to you. Of course, given most taxpayers and producers are conservative, this new country would probably be a giant slum soon enough, and all the progressives would start weeping because they didn't have wifi, but if your new nation had any sort of natural resources you might make a go of it if you could find any progressive willing to exploit them - which is unlikely. More likely is that some other nation would come along from outside the West and your nation would be under new management.

I bet most Conservatives don't share this same ignorant and mean-spirited view of their fellow Canadians.  I've recently discovered that many Conservatives are able to discuss differences without resorting to sweeping insults, which is a nice change from what I see here.

[dialamah]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

extreme right is more likely to side with Muslims simply because, like them, the Muslim world hates Jews too.

They don't though.  They just add Muslims to all the other people they hate .. Jews, feminists and liberals.  

[DogOnPorch]

47 minutes ago, dialamah said:

They don't though.  They just add Muslims to all the other people they hate .. Jews, feminists and liberals.  

Islam is the West's historical enemy. Turns out, its the West's current enemy, as well.

Riddle me this: why was Islam created by Mohammad?

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

  Islamophobia isn't clearly stated.  Freedom of speech is compromised.

Those two statements contradict each other.  How can you be sure it's compromised if it's not clear ?

If there were a precedent where religious rights trumped freedom of expression then I might believe you.  But really, it's hyperbole to my mind.

[Altai]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Those two statements contradict each other.  How can you be sure it's compromised if it's not clear ?

LoL, smoke weed everyday

http://bit.ly/McRt9M

[betsy]

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Those two statements contradict each other.  How can you be sure it's compromised if it's not clear ?

If there were a precedent where religious rights trumped freedom of expression then I might believe you.  But really, it's hyperbole to my mind.

 

No they don't contradict.   You're not looking at the proper angle.

Freedom of speech is compromised if we don't know what clearly constitutes Islamophobia.     Is simple criticism of Islam considered Islamophobic?  We're likely not to say anything if we don't know.  Thus, freedom of speech is compromised.

The analogy I could think of is saying "don't go into your neighbor's property," but there's no parameter to indicate where our neighbor's property begins.  So you're wary of moving.

 

Edited March 31, 2017 by betsy

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

 In fact, the extreme right is more likely to side with Muslims simply because, like them, the Muslim world hates Jews too.

You certainly ought to know, Argus.

Edited March 31, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

25 minutes ago, betsy said:

Freedom of speech is compromised if we don't know what clearly constitutes Islamophobia.     Is simple criticism of Islam considered Islamophobic?  We're likely not to say anything if we don't know.  Thus, freedom of speech is compromised.

Very circular. It's easy to find out what Islamophobia is, Betsy, just check any dictionary, then read yours and other Islamophobes posts to see that you folks exhibit  " irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam" [M-W].

There's a constant drone of "we are being overrun, our lives are in danger, our culture is finished, ... " when a simple reality check, exactly what you folks avoid like the plague, reveals it's all "the sky is falling" nonsense. 

You were right when you said, "we don't know". That has been abundantly clear from the get go. People who really want to know do not avoid discussing the facts, which is exactly what Islamophobes do. 

[hot enough]

37 minutes ago, betsy said:

You're not looking at the proper angle.

 

Defined as,

"an often improper or illicit method of obtaining advantage; a salesman always looking for an angle" [M-W]

[Michael Hardner]

39 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Is simple criticism of Islam considered Islamophobic?  We're likely not to say anything if we don't know.  Thus, freedom of speech is compromised.

It's not compromised until somebody compromises free speech.  Supposing that a motion may become a law that may restrict speech some day is not the same as reality.

Call things as they are - don't exaggerate or you will lose my support. 

[betsy]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's not compromised until somebody compromises free speech.  Supposing that a motion may become a law that may restrict speech some day is not the same as reality.

Call things as they are - don't exaggerate or you will lose my support. 

 

Ahhh, I see what you're saying.  Fair enough:  freedom of speech will be compromised - if there becomes law against Islamophobia. (as explained above).

 

As I've explained to Dialamah, what I gave is an example of what CAN be manipulated.

Edited March 31, 2017 by betsy

[dialamah]

29 minutes ago, betsy said:

Ahhh, I see what you're saying.  Fair enough:  freedom of speech will be compromised - if there becomes law against Islamophobia. (as explained above).

Freedom of speech would only be compromised if there was a law that further limited our freedom of speech.

A law against Islamaphobia would only compromise Freedom of Speech if it it defined Islamapobia as including legitimate criticism, or any criticism.  I understand this is what some people are afraid of.

If an anti-Islamaphobia law only included acts of violence against Muslims, or statements that encouraged violence against Muslims, then it would not.

I see no reason why more laws would be needed though.  Perhaps something like the Ottawa Protocol, which defines anti-semitism, will be the result so that Islamaphobia is defined and people can stop panicking that they can't call Muslims backward or misogynistic etc.

[betsy]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Freedom of speech would only be compromised if there was a law that further limited our freedom of speech.

 

That's why I said, "CAN."

 

Go back and review our exchanges.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Freedom of speech would only be compromised if there was a law that further limited our freedom of speech.

A law against Islamaphobia would only compromise Freedom of Speech if it it defined Islamapobia as including legitimate criticism, or any criticism.  I understand this is what some people are afraid of.

If an anti-Islamaphobia law only included acts of violence against Muslims, or statements that encouraged violence against Muslims, then it would not.

I see no reason why more laws would be needed though.  Perhaps something like the Ottawa Protocol, which defines anti-semitism, will be the result so that Islamaphobia is defined and people can stop panicking that they can't call Muslims backward or misogynistic etc.

Criticism doesn't have to be legitmate for it to be an infringement on the freedom of speech were it outlawed.  It could be completely idiotic.  It would still be allowed under freedom of speech.  Denying the Holocaust is idiotic, but I would never advocate the banning of such views being expressed.

Edit>  I just saw you said "or any criticism."  Makes my post redundant.  I could delete it, but, what the hell.

Edited March 31, 2017 by bcsapper

[Argus]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

I bet most Conservatives don't share this same ignorant and mean-spirited view of their fellow Canadians.  I've recently discovered that many Conservatives are able to discuss differences without resorting to sweeping insults, which is a nice change from what I see here.

So you're a paragon of virtue as far as political posturing goes, have I got that right - or left?

But... but... when dre talks with great delight about having all the conservatives violently KILLED and how he'd eat popcorn and laugh, that's not something which calls for any sort of protest on your part, right? The truth is you're as much an ideological zealot of the far Left as he is.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

You certainly ought to know, Argus.

Really? Shall we ask the Jews on this web site whether they think I hate Jews or you do? You're the one who talks about the international Zionist conspiracy that rules our banking and governments, after all.

[dialamah]

29 minutes ago, Argus said:

So you're a paragon of virtue as far as political posturing goes, have I got that right - or left?

But... but... when dre talks with great delight about having all the conservatives violently KILLED and how he'd eat popcorn and laugh, that's not something which calls for any sort of protest on your part, right? The truth is you're as much an ideological zealot of the far Left as he is.

Your comments on Muslims and immigrants put you right in line with alt-right zealots so I guess we're just two sides of the same coin.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Your comments on Muslims and immigrants put you right in line with alt-right zealots so I guess we're just two sides of the same coin.

Hardly. Everything I've said has related to proven behavior, with cites and stats to back it up. You simply can't stand any criticism of Islam - for fairly obvious reasons.

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Hardly. Everything I've said has related to proven behavior, with cites and stats to back it up. You simply can't stand any criticism of Islam - for fairly obvious reasons.

You use stats and cites to mislead.  For example claiming that increased wearing of hijab among younger women "proves" younger Muslims are more loyal and committed to Islam and their "home" country while ignoring and dismissing the fact that the majority of Muslims (and all immigrants) consider themselves Canadian first and Muslim (or whatever) second.  

Do you think alt-right nutbars don't use the same information the same way as you?

[Argus]

18 hours ago, dialamah said:

You use stats and cites to mislead.  For example claiming that increased wearing of hijab among younger women "proves" younger Muslims are more loyal and committed to Islam and their "home" country while ignoring and dismissing the fact that the majority of Muslims (and all immigrants) consider themselves Canadian first and Muslim (or whatever) second.  

Why do you use words like 'fact' for things which are not factual? Do you, like Donald Trump, simply believe anything you wish to be true is true? Do you, like Trump, not care about what is or is not factual as long as a statement supports your argument?

I have stated that growing numbers of Muslim women are wearing the hijab which indicates a growing dedication to the more conservative strain of Islam. As for their loyalties:

Among those who consider both religion and country to be very important to their identity (72% of the population), half (50%) say that being Muslim is more important, compared with 15 percent who place greater emphasis on being Canadian, and 27 percent who maintain that both parts of their identity are equally important.

...Most strongly identify as both Muslim and Canadian, although the Muslim identity tends to be the stronger of the two, especially among individuals under 35 years of age. Among immigrants, attachment to Islam is more likely to have strengthened than weakened since moving to Canada.

http://www.environicsinstitute.org/uploads/institute-projects/survey of muslims in canada 2016 - final report.pdf

Quote

Do you think alt-right nutbars don't use the same information the same way as you?

I am supremely uninterested in what the alt right has to say about anything.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Argus