Yet more problematic stuff

[Cunt]

You mentioned "The law against islamophobia". Brian Peacock was asking you to state which law you're talking about. This is a rather disingenuous way of refusing to do so, but I'll play with this summary:

Islam has all the features of a theocracy. It is totalitarian, intolerant, unjust, uncivilised, brutal and cruel.

Now cite the law against islamophobia my summary breaks.

How about looking at this yet another way.

I think your statement is clear, meaningful and represents an important position. Is it taught in schools anywhere in Canada?

Or in your country?

If that important information isn't being taught to young people, where can they find it?

[JimC]

It is not something to be taught in schools, but to be discovered by research and thinking. The main issue is that most of the publicly stated anti-islamic positions are also deeply anti anyone who is muslim, and racist to boot...

[Hermit]

The Canadian laws would be violated if you promoted hate against Islam, not for hating it yourself (if I understand correctly)

Cite what you keep referring to as actual "laws against Islamophobia", please, point to the words in them that make Islamophobia a punishable offence and suggest ways a Canadian, Australian or UK authority might succeed in prosecuting me. It's no good playing the shrinking violet now. You have unambiguously alleged that we dare not criticise Islam because we fear being prosecuted. No, it is not clear to me "how such statements, made publicly and with a few complaints, could land you in hot water" at all, but you keep saying that sort of thing so often and with such conviction that it must be clear to you. Now I demand that, metaphorically speaking, you put you money where your mouth is already.

[JimC]

It simply comes from the tired right-wing mantra that evil governments want to control everything about us, including what we can say about anything at all...

[Cunt]

It simply comes from the tired right-wing mantra that evil governments want to control everything about us, including what we can say about anything at all...

It doesn't matter which wing of government. I don't want them in control of what can be said. I think you do. It might be something we clearly disagree on.

[Cunt]

I showed a reference to the law, which was denied. There are extreme cases, such as Sharia law being applied in western democracies, but I don't care to find them, since evidence bounces off you.

The evidence such as the fact that this can't be taught in schools. We can teach them about the Nazi horror, so teaching them that some ideologies are terrible seems to not be the problem. Teaching students that Nazi-ism was terrible because dead Jews is regular, so why not teach about this? It's ok to promote German-hate but not Islam-hate?

My radical theory is that people will be uncomfortable around these topics, and will communicate it. If not allowed words, I would expect other means of communication. How do you get people talking more and taking violent action less?

Some fat, KKK-sympathizer exemplifies the value of this perspective.

Would he now be accused of being 'alt-right adjacent'?

[rainbow]

Teaching students that Nazi-ism was terrible because dead Jews is regular, so why not teach about this? It's ok to promote German-hate but not Islam-hate?

It isn't German-hate. It is Nazi-hate.

If you can't actually tell the difference, then your intelligence is questionable.

[Hermit]

There are extreme cases, such as Sharia law being applied in western democracies, but I don't care to find them...

So, still not backing any of your shit up. Thanks for nothing.

[pErvinalia]

I showed a reference to the law, which was denied. There are extreme cases, such as Sharia law being applied in western democracies, but I don't care to find them, since evidence bounces off you.

Says the guy who never posts evidence for any of his claims!

[Scot Dutchy]

This is the carp America wants to force on the UK:

Pesticide residues found in 70% of produce sold in US even after washing

Strawberries, spinach and kale among most pesticide-heavy
Conventionally farmed kale could contain up to 18 pesticides



About 70% of fresh produce sold in the US has pesticide residues on it even after it is washed, according to a health advocacy group.

According to the Environmental Working Group’s annual analysis of US Department of Agriculture data, strawberries, spinach and kale are among the most pesticide-heavy produce, while avocados, sweetcorn and pineapples had the lowest level of residues.

More than 92% of kale tested contained two or more pesticide residues, according to the analysis, and a single sample of conventionally farmed kale could contain up to 18 different pesticides.

Dacthal – the most common pesticide found, which was detected in nearly 60% of kale samples, is banned in Europe and classified as a possible human carcinogen in the US.

“We definitely acknowledge and support that everybody should be eating healthy fruits and vegetables as part of their diet regardless of if they’re conventional or organic,” said Alexis Temkin, a toxicologist working with the EWG.

“But what we try to highlight with the Shopper’s Guide to Produce is building on a body of evidence that shows mixtures of pesticides can have adverse effects.”

Other foods on the group’s “dirty dozen” list include grapes, cherries, apples, tomatoes and potatoes. In contrast, its “clean 15” list includes avocados, onions and cauliflower.

Leonardo Trasande, an environmental medicine specialist at the New York University medical school, called the EWG report “widely respected” and said it can inform shoppers who want to buy some organic fruits and vegetables, but would like to know which ones they could prioritize.

Keep your rubbish.

[Brian Peacock]

...
The Canadian laws would be violated if you promoted hate against Islam, not for hating it yourself (if I understand correctly).

Which laws?

[Brian Peacock]

It simply comes from the tired right-wing mantra that evil governments want to control everything about us, including what we can say about anything at all...

It doesn't matter which wing of government. I don't want them in control of what can be said. I think you do. It might be something we clearly disagree on.

So you'd be happy with Muslims proselyting for Allah outside Carpet Warehouse then?

[Joe]

I showed a reference to the law, which was denied. There are extreme cases, such as Sharia law being applied in western democracies, but I don't care to find them, since evidence bounces off you.

Says the guy who never posts evidence for any of his claims!

I think I remember him doing that, but the law didn't support his claims.

Perhaps a few hundred Depeche Mode videos would be more persuasive?

[rainbow]

Perhaps a few hundred Depeche Mode videos would be more persuasive?

[Forty Two]

I would suggest that Islamicism is also a form of violent right-wing extremism.

I would agree wholeheartedly - theocratic - conservative politically and socially to the point of highly authoritarian -- tinges of racism, sexism, anti-gay - etc -- all aspects of the "far right wing extremism." The reason why it's not characterized as such is the infusion of, into the mainstream thought/zeitgeist, the nonsensical notion that Muslims are an oppressed minority, so they gain the sympathy of "the left" (under Progressive Stack/intersectionalist theory) and the left could not countenance support for that which is "right wing." Ergo, Muslim extremism is not right wing extremism - it's an oppressed group lashing out at the white oppressors.

Or maybe it's because conservative, right-wing Christians (aka Republicans) and conservative, right-wing Muslims are too stupid to see how similar they are to each other.

Very true - to some degree, the right wing religious nutters are the same, although most Republicans are not of the particularly religious variety. That theocratic mindset is a poison.