Quote :

"No one is forcing them to wear burqas. And if someone is, that's the real crime, not the women merely wearing a particular article of clothing...""

7/14/2010 8:35:18 PM

I can see the episode of COPS now.

7/14/2010 8:36:45 PM

This is all I could think of after reading the last few posts:

7/14/2010 8:43:26 PM

7/14/2010 8:54:17 PM

Quote :

"No one is forcing them to wear burqas. And if someone is, that's the real crime, not the women merely wearing a particular article of clothing...""

I suppose you keep repeating this idiotic statement because you think it means something?

Abused women are well known for standing up to their abusers, right?

7/14/2010 9:21:03 PM

^^I'd like to stone the girl on the left for wearing those boots.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 9:45 PM. Reason : Death to America...why do I keep forgetting this?]

7/14/2010 9:44:09 PM

Quote :

"Only recently has the multicultural, pluralistic, cultural equivalence-loving Euro-Left started to question that approach. The fact that the most hippie, relativist, post-modern, anything-goes continent in the world would start to draw a line in the sand is proof of exactly what I'm talking about. When the sword started to meet the sponge, the sponge started realizing that maybe it should toughen up."

While the left has its own problems integrating various cultural aspects of Islam, I love how you basically saddle the left with the reactions of the right as well (as if Europe doesn't have one). Lol.

I mean you basically judge the entire continent based on your stereotypes and brutish misconceptions, and then use this to make a "rly makes u think~..." style comment. Unreal.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 9:47 PM. Reason : .]

7/14/2010 9:47:07 PM

^^^
You're hopeless.

Quote :

"You want to restrict the actions of alleged victims to punish, who? What if a women who is forced to wear a burqa does so after such a law is passed. Do we arrest her? Have you all lost your fucking minds? (It's amazing how you authoritarians think sometimes....)"

Quote :

"You want to restrict the actions of alleged victims to punish, who? What if a women who is forced to wear a burqa does so after such a law is passed. Do we arrest her? Have you all lost your fucking minds? (It's amazing how you authoritarians think sometimes....)"

Quote :

"You want to restrict the actions of alleged victims to punish, who? What if a women who is forced to wear a burqa does so after such a law is passed. Do we arrest her? Have you all lost your fucking minds? (It's amazing how you authoritarians think sometimes....)"

7/14/2010 9:51:38 PM

^ It's amazing to consider consequences?

Your solution is to just do nothing about oppression and abuse, that's just disgusting.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 9:57 PM. Reason : ]

7/14/2010 9:57:25 PM

Quote :

"Your solution is to just do nothing about oppression and abuse, that's just disgusting"

Me? Disgusting? What?

Okay.

Enough.

If you're trolling, just stop.

I already said that the real crime is the forcing of women to wear burqas.
That's the oppression and abuse you're talking about. Right?
I never said that nothing should be done.

You, however, have suggested that the solution is to ARREST THE VICTIM.

Seriously. Just stop. Think.

A woman is forced wear a burqa. That's the crime. (being forced to do something.)
Can we agree there?

You. You are suggesting that wearing a burqa SHOULD BE A CRIME.

Seriously. Just stop. Think.

Rather than focusing on the REAL crime, (the forcing of the women to wear burqas, by someone)
you want to focus on the victim.


Let's examine this:
What's another crime? I know. Genital mutilation.

It's a crime to mutilate a female's genitals. (without genuine adult consent, like clit piercing)
That is wrong.
Can we agree there?

Do we:
a) make it a crime to mutilate a women's genitals.
or
b) make it a crime to have mutilated genitals

IS THIS REALLY THAT HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND??

Of course the answer is 'a'. The person or persons who mutilated the women's genitals are the criminals. The woman who had her genitals mutilated is not the criminal. She is the victim.
Can we agree there?

So why the god damn fuck would you be suggesting that women who are forced to wear burquas be criminals? Because that's what you're saying.

Someone forces the women to wear burqas, but rather than doing something about that oppression and abuse, you want to arrest the women????

Seriously. Just stop. Think.



what the god damn fuck are you talking about? why the fuck would you make it a crime to wear a burqa, when the women wearing them are supposedly THE FUCKING VICTIMS????

YOU WANT TO ARREST THE VICTIMS, AND NOT THE PERSONS THAT ACTUALLY DID THE CRIME???

Seriously. Just stop. Think.





I don't know what else to say.
You want to arrest victims of [possible] oppression and abuse, instead of arresting the oppressors/abusers, [if any.]

I don't know what else to say.


(even if you're just trolling, you're a sick fucker)

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 10:37 PM. Reason : ]

7/14/2010 10:14:05 PM

You obviously don't watch COPS. On domestic violence calls, everyone gets arrested. It's family court that always favors the bitches.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 11:14 PM. Reason : death to america]

7/14/2010 10:46:13 PM

Quote :

"Me? Disgusting? What?"

TULIPlovr thinks Muslims have sealed Europe's fate and are coming for America next because all the Muslim's in America are keeping their feelings secret until they reach critical mass to take over. I think if anything deserves to get called out as disgusting, then the debate over whether or not certain types of dress are sexist vs a matter of free speech doesn't come close to the idea that we need a Christian majority b/c most Muslims in America are secretly plotting.

7/16/2010 9:21:06 AM

for the record, i support the right of women to wear the burqa or whatever the F they want to wear.

However, for public safety, there are some (very few) places where they must be required to show their face. These cases should be for law enforcement purposes only.

7/16/2010 9:24:18 AM

Quote :

"While the left has its own problems integrating various cultural aspects of Islam, I love how you basically saddle the left with the reactions of the right as well (as if Europe doesn't have one). Lol. I mean you basically judge the entire continent based on your stereotypes and brutish misconceptions, and then use this to make a "rly makes u think~..." style comment. Unreal."

It's not the right that is starting to push back against the Muslims. Why? Because Europe's right ain't big enough to do it. The only reason such moves are getting any traction is the significant number of anything-goes, love everyone Lefties who are grudgingly recognizing the threat.

Amsterdam has been considering, and has implemented, some of these backwards, ignorant anti-Muslim polices.

Amsterdam.

They still don't give a rat's ass about pot or prostitution. It's not a rightward shift in their thinking, or any nationalism or racism creeping in. Europe still loathes us pretty universally for those same traits. And yet, the push toward these laws is very real. How do you explain that?

It's not the right. It's the left waking up to reality.

Quote :

"TULIPlovr thinks Muslims have sealed Europe's fate and are coming for America next because all the Muslim's in America are keeping their feelings secret until they reach critical mass to take over. I think if anything deserves to get called out as disgusting, then the debate over whether or not certain types of dress are sexist vs a matter of free speech doesn't come close to the idea that we need a Christian majority b/c most Muslims in America are secretly plotting."

It's not my opinion. Non-Muslim Europeans aren't even having enough babies to come close to replacing themselves. Muslims in Europe are procreating like bunnies, and growing exponentially.

Gaddafi gets it.

Quote :

"There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest. We have 50 million Muslims in Europe - they will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

But he's quite disingenuous to say that it will be without violence. It just won't require as much as it would otherwise.

Regarding Muslim deception in general, it is absolutely affirmed by their own theology. Any lie to an unbeliever, if given in order to preserve or protect Islam, is not only permissible but expected.

When the entire history of Islamic jurisprudence says that they can lie to me whenever they wish, I tend to doubt the goals posted on their websites.

[Edited on July 16, 2010 at 11:24 AM. Reason : a]

7/16/2010 11:23:06 AM

But we have to accept and tolerate everyone's views, and never condemn them, even if their beliefs lead to destructive behavior...

Yes, this is why I don't (and will never) respect religion, and it's why I'll actively work to dismantle it. Believe whatever you want, but don't tell me what you believe and expect to keep my opinion to myself. Christianity is better than Islam, in terms of negative impact, but not by much. If religion only sought to impose its morality on believers, then I'd just chalk it up to people believing in stupid things. It never stops there, though.

I don't mind being called an "evangelical atheist." I've been told by scores of people, here and elsewhere, that it's no better than being a religious fundamentalist. The difference is that I'm not going to blow up a building, or pass a bunch of laws, because I don't believe in a deity.

7/16/2010 11:36:29 AM

^Assuming there will be a lot of religion around for some time to come... do you prefer it to be predominately one religion, or a plethora of religions?

7/16/2010 5:11:06 PM

^just in case you didn't see my question

It was in reference to this particular part of your statement:

Quote :

"Christianity is better than Islam, in terms of negative impact, but not by much."

8/23/2010 5:05:42 PM

Christianity creeps into our laws, to some degree, and we see those negative effects. Whether it's "faith-based initiatives," abortion, drug laws, laws regarding same sex relationships, or stem-cell research, traditional "Christian" views have a less than desirable influence on American government. I view Christianity and Islam as the same sort of delusion; believers often find themselves unable to find the glaringly obvious flaws in their own way of thinking.

If we had maintained a constitutional republic, as was intended, these Christian influences would have a more limited impact, especially on the federal level. As it stands currently, Congress has the power to pass a law supporting or encouraging religious activity. It has no authority to do so, but if you can muster 51% of the vote, it's perfectly doable - at least for a period of time. And, while many would try to convince you otherwise, we are not a Christian nation. The writings of the time make it very clear that the Constitution is a non-religious document, and that the federal government would favor no religion at all. We should certainly demand that our representatives vote in a way that reflects that, regardless of any of our actual beliefs.

However, as detrimental as Christianity has been, Islam is a far more infectious (and destructive) load of bullshit. Islam, at least as it is seen practiced in many parts of the world, requires that the system of government incorporate key tenets of Islam. That fusing of religion and government must be the the closest thing to evil that exists. There is an entire power structure that simultaneously maintains and instills Islamic values. Europe faces a situation where there exists a rapidly increasing population of people that want to commandeer (and reform) government, but not in any kind of way that would be seen as progressive by our standards. The most effective check on this would be a constitution that properly defines the bounds of government. Undesirable violations of free speech would not be necessary, if such a check were in place.

As for your original question, I don't care how many religions exist. As far as I'm concerned, most people create their own religion. Opinions on what various scriptures mean will vary and are subject to wild (or just plain bizarre) speculation, even within a single congregation or denomination. What I'm concerned with is how much of an effect those religions have on society and the advancement of society. The content of the religion(s), and the extent to which followers act out the doctrine, is of higher importance to me.

[Edited on August 24, 2010 at 1:16 AM. Reason : ]

8/24/2010 1:09:09 AM

d357r0y3r got a bingo!

8/24/2010 9:26:16 AM