Yet more problematic stuff

[Sean Hayden]

Would you suck off a pig while reading the Koran, and post that shit on Youtube? Huh, would you, punk!?





--too far? Yeah, that's probably too far.

[Rum]

I’m sure there’s a name for what Cunt does. You find an extreme example of some rare and unlikely exception that you inflate and inflate in order to prove that the rare exception is in fact the norm and that therefore everything you believe about that issue is shit, whereas of course it is actually vanishingly unlikely.

I blame funny cigarettes myself.

[Joe]

[Jason]

Would you suck off a pig while reading the Koran, and post that shit on Youtube? Huh, would you, punk!?





--too far? Yeah, that's probably too far.

[Cunt]

That's not a normal thing to wonder about. It's fine if it crosses your mind, but if you find yourself consistently wondering about that sort of thing then you've been mind-fucked. There's just no good reason for some guy living in the middle of nowhere in Canada to be so concerned about Islam.

You're being manipulated.

What is it you think I'm so wrong about?

I have heard both sides. I have noticed manipulative tactics from both sides. Islam is a growing community in every city and town in Canada. If it is going to improve us, great.

Which countries have been improved by increasing their Islamic believer population?

[Brian Peacock]

I’m sure there’s a name for what Cunt does. You find an extreme example of some rare and unlikely exception that you inflate and inflate in order to prove that the rare exception is in fact the norm and that therefore everything you believe about that issue is shit, whereas of course it is actually vanishingly unlikely.

I blame funny cigarettes myself.

It's an informal fallacy called generalising from the particular, or a hasty generalisation.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... ralization

And I was an habitual dope smoker for 20 years and it didn't do me any potato muffin.

[Cunt]

That might be true, if a lot of people drew Mohommad and published the cartoons with no consequences.

Or if there weren't laws protecting certain special people over 'others'.

Of course, it's probably easier for you to dismiss me as crazy, rather than address real issues.

Like the denial not long ago, from some posters here, that anyone would be arrested for 'mis-gendering'. Not only has it happened, it happened for something said on TWITTER lol

Calling me crazy is lawful in your country, Rum. Speaking the truth about Islam, mentally ill people who pretend they are the other gender, or Brexit will be actionable.

Heaven forbid you get caught talking to someone on the 'verboten' list, or you will be labeled 'alt-right adjacent' or something equally horrible.

[Forty Two]

I am not conservative or right wing - I'm classical liberal and tend to the libertarian - and I am liberal on most issues.

Drivel. Liberal implies a tolerance of other views and creeds. That includes Islam.

It is really a twatty thing to do to contradict oneself.

Camille Desmoulins, a famous revolutionary, once said "there must be no freedom for the foes of freedom". Islam, especially in its modern, totalitarian forms, will not grant others the tolerance that liberal thinkers normally grant those of diverging opinions, ergo, it must be expunged rather than tolerated.

Funny, though, that Camille Desmoulins was tried and executed by the Revolutional Tribunal (created by the National Convention) which was the tribunal created by the freedom-seeking French revolutionaries. Desmoulins, anti-Royalist, and Dantonist proponent of the French Revolution, began speaking out against the Tribunal, which caused him to be expelled from the Jacobin Club (the egalitarians) and ultimately executed by the very tribunal that was giving "no freedom to the foes of freedom." By criticizing the Revolutionary Tribunal, Desmoulins became an enemy of freedom.

Even though Islam will, if given legal teeth and power, deny others the tolerance that liberal thinkers would grant diverging opinions, one does not have tolerance for diverging opinions if one does not grant equal tolerance under the law to Islam and other monstrous belief systems. It's fine for individuals to speak out against religions, and I think they should. But there must be a separation of church/mosque and state - and the government/law must be neutral on matters of religion, neither for nor against a religion, and not for or against religion or non-religion in general. The should not silence Muslims when they talk about requirements of women to wear certain things, or homosexuals to be jailed or executed - and the law should not silence critics of Islam for pointing out that it's a giant lode of horseshit.

Maybe I can translate that to Progressive-speak - by mocking, ridiculing and expressing contempt for Islam, I'm speaking truth to power. So, I get to say what I want.

[Svartalf]

So he was, he had managed to get the enmity of Robespierre and his clique, who, in the Reign of Terror, did apply that axiom he has put most pithily.

[Forty Two]

That might be true, if a lot of people drew Mohommad and published the cartoons with no consequences.

It used to be acceptable to be liberal, left and even Progressive and take part in Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. That's sort of fallen out of favor. Now, it's considered right wing and Islamaphobic. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... e-1.439796

[Forty Two]

So he was, he had managed to get the enmity of Robespierre and his clique, who, in the Reign of Terror, did apply that axiom he has put most pithily.

Indeed, but it just goes to show why laws against hate speech and Islamaphobia are so wrong. They purport to be intolerant of that which is intolerable, but they are themselves authoritarian and censorious laws which harm the very ideal supports of such laws often CLAIM to be trying to foster.

The battle of ideas is fought between individuals and groups of individuals. Once you give the State or the law the right to pick winning ideas, we have stood liberty on its head and we become slaves to the state.

[Cunt]

That might be true, if a lot of people drew Mohommad and published the cartoons with no consequences.

It used to be acceptable to be liberal, left and even Progressive and take part in Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. That's sort of fallen out of favor. Now, it's considered right wing and Islamaphobic. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... e-1.439796

As long as you submit, Islam presents no problem to society. Anyone who doesn't, seems afraid to say so publicly.

What happened to Sam Harris (a brilliant guy) at the hands of Ben Affleck (a winsome and charming idiot) was shameful. Also no problem at all for most folks.

Calling him 'racist' is just so common among lefties, that they probably don't even consider the consequences of screeching it any time they are uncomfortable about facts. Like the cartoon ban. (that TOTALLY isn't a ban on political speech, just offensive speech)

[Cunt]

Climate change science is problematic.

[Hermit]

well, Ani, given the number of muslims who seem to believe in earnest that jihad is a command to do bloody war on the infidel, maybe you should.

Tell me, Svarty, what percentage of Muslims believe in earnest that jihad is a command to do bloody war on the infidel?

[Cunt]

well, Ani, given the number of muslims who seem to believe in earnest that jihad is a command to do bloody war on the infidel, maybe you should.

Tell me, Svarty, what percentage of Muslims believe in earnest that jihad is a command to do bloody war on the infidel?

Tell me, Hermit, how does it feel to so often be in the position of 'apologist for Islam'?