Social Muslim protestors chant 'death to America, death to Israel at rally in Dearborn Michigan after city was branded 'Jihad capital' of U.S. by WSJ

Brigfa2 said:
My father is a muslim(shitty muslim tbh) and he never thought about moving to west but if he did, he would never disrespect to the country he lives in. It's interesting most muslims living in the west are radical ones. In my home country liberal muslims hates the ones living in the west because of how disrespectful and ungrateful they are. But liberals in the west kisses their ass.
Click to expand...

There definitely seems to be the same phenomenon with western muslims as we see with affluent mixed race people like Colin Kaepernick. Like they over compensate or something.
 
Even they know that US is fascist and racist atm.
 
fungi said:
No, it does not.

Age restriction is the most logical thing.
Why do we not serve alcohol, tobacco to younglings? Because they are not mature enough.

Religion is potentially much more dangerous than those things.

What's the worst thing a drunk can do? Kill someone in a drunken stupor.

What's the most dangerous thing a religous nut can do? Commit a terroristic act, start a war, genocide people of other faith, etc., while being sober and of "allegedly" clear mind.

P.s. even bloody amishes do not baptize babies. They baptize adults, after the adult chooses to be baptized. Usually after a rumspringa, a 3-year journey in the non-amish, secular world.
Click to expand...

Alcohol and Tobacco are regulated commodities and not guaranteed rights like religion. Granted, even guaranteed rights can face reasonable regulation in the interest of public safety. If you're going down route you're going to need to show the actual data and legal precedence that would outweigh first amendment rights.
 
Voodoo_Child906 said:
Alcohol and Tobacco are regulated commodities and not guaranteed rights like religion. Granted, even guaranteed rights can face reasonable regulation in the interest of public safety. If you're going down route you're going to need to show the actual data and legal precedence that would outweigh first amendment rights.
Click to expand...
Do you see the problem with that approach?
precendence outweighs common sense.
That's the bloody problem here.

Plus, amendements are there for a reason, to improve the law, if it lacks functionality.
So if some amendment doesn't work, it should be amended.

I'm afraid it might be too late in some cases.

P.s. marijuana is a part of rastafarian religion. Why, for decades, were thousands of ganja smoking non-violent citizens jailed? Where were their constitutional rights?

In judaism, for pre-shabbas dinner, wine is to be consumed by everybody, even underage children who have been bar/bat-mitzvahed. Some orthodox jews do that. Is it their guaranteed right to serve alcohol to children?

That's why common sense and logic should be above precedence and religious dogma.
 
Islam Imamate said:
If you've read about free speech protections in the US and think that this kind of speech isn't obviously covered then idk what to tell you.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry reading comprehension is tough for you. Please, we're done. Go away now, thanks.
 
fungi said:
Do you see the problem with that approach?
precendence outweighs common sense.
That's the bloody problem here.

Plus, amendements are there for a reason, to improve the law, if it lacks functionality.
So if some amendment doesn't work, it should be amended.

I'm afraid it might be too late in some cases.

P.s. marijuana is a part of rastafarian religion. Why, for decades, were thousands of ganja smoking non-violent citizens jailed? Where were their constitutional rights?

In judaism, for pre-shabbas dinner, wine is to be consumed by everybody, even underage children who have been bar/bat-mitzvahed. Some orthodox jews do that. Is it their guaranteed right to serve alcohol to children?

That's why common sense and logic should be above precedence and religious dogma.
Click to expand...

The problem is that something that seems like common sense and logical to one person may not to another. In cases where there are conflicting rights, it's the courts job to discern which rights take precedence and if reasonable accommodations can be made. I'm an Atheist myself, and I see some real damaging aspects of religion but I still accept that people have the right to freely practice and teach their religion with limited government interference.
 
Voodoo_Child906 said:
The problem is that something that seems like common sense and logical to one person may not to another. In cases where there are conflicting rights, it's the courts job to discern which rights take precedence and if reasonable accommodations can be made. I'm an Atheist myself, and I see some real damaging aspects of religion but I still accept that people have the right to freely practice and teach their religion with limited government interference.
Click to expand...
it is.
the problem is that these days a supreme court justice candidate can't define a woman, because she/he/whatever is not a biologist.

There's the dilemma: "spirit of the law vs letter of the law". I'm calling it "common sense vs excuseableism for criminals".
 
Rational Poster said:
Name one option.
Click to expand...
At this point, the window has closed dramatically. But a cessation of hostilities (to the extent that you probably can't stop a low grade insurgency) and Israel giving up settler lands is pretty much a baseline requirement.

I won't pretend to have all the answers or some cure all solution. What I will point to is a couple of pertinent historical parallels:
1. If you asked anyone in the 80s if the Good Friday agreement would be possible, let alone last decades as a resounding success, the answer would have been no. Yet here we are. I'll add that ironically the Troubles and the modern Palestinian conflict have most of their roots from around the same time.
2. South Africa, if you asked anyone in the 80s if the ANC could give up violence and get the MK under the control, people would have laughed and said once a terrorist always a terrorist. Yet, for all of South Africa's faults, the ANC has made that transition. I'd say Hamas is much further behind the curve on the transition, but like I said, it's a useful historical parallel when considering what's possible 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from now.
 
avenue94 said:
Most Muslims are fairly apolitical. Do you have any evidence that most Muslims in the West are radicals, besides just truthiness?
Click to expand...
I'm not a dumb westerner living in fairytale like you, i'm talking with many of them. How many of them you know personally?
 
Brigfa2 said:
I'm not a dumb westerner living in fairytale like you, i'm talking with many of them. How many of them you know personally?
Click to expand...
Quite a few actually. Plus there are plenty of poll son these kind of attitudes. I'd explain why your sample size is shit but I don't think you know much about stats.
 
avenue94 said:
Quite a few actually. Plus there are plenty of poll son these kind of attitudes. I'd explain why your sample size is shit but I don't think you know much about stats.
Click to expand...
Send me those polls? My sample size is growing in a muslim country, still looking at the muslim social media platforms, %70 of the people i know being muslim. Yeah boy your sample size is bigger. You are the type of white boy that think most muslims are feminist and lgbt friendly
 
avenue94 said:
At this point, the window has closed dramatically. But a cessation of hostilities (to the extent that you probably can't stop a low grade insurgency) and Israel giving up settler lands is pretty much a baseline requirement.

I won't pretend to have all the answers or some cure all solution. What I will point to is a couple of pertinent historical parallels:
1. If you asked anyone in the 80s if the Good Friday agreement would be possible, let alone last decades as a resounding success, the answer would have been no. Yet here we are. I'll add that ironically the Troubles and the modern Palestinian conflict have most of their roots from around the same time.
2. South Africa, if you asked anyone in the 80s if the ANC could give up violence and get the MK under the control, people would have laughed and said once a terrorist always a terrorist. Yet, for all of South Africa's faults, the ANC has made that transition. I'd say Hamas is much further behind the curve on the transition, but like I said, it's a useful historical parallel when considering what's possible 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from now.
Click to expand...
why are egypt, jordan, lebanon, syria never part of a solution? why is the palestinian refugee issue only an israel issue?

israel gives up settler land and gets what in return? you still have a majority of pals who don't want a 2 state solution themselves. in part because they believe they can defeat israel and eliminate them.
 
White Whale said:
It's interesting people defend Muslims free speech while Muslims would not do the same for any other group.
Click to expand...
There is nothing more opposite to western liberal values than islam but retarded western liberal logic is minority=good no matter what.
That's why you see dumb shit like queers for palestine. It's no different than jews for the Nazi Germany.
Mexicans are pretty conservative too but they have to defend them because they are the heroes!
 
fica said:
Lol how many of these are paid actors like during gf protest some do want america dead i at least want it out of that part of the world but most of these people are paid actors.
Click to expand...
Honest question: paid by whom?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,391
Messages
55,487,943
Members
174,787
Latest member
nicenhot

Share this page

Back
Top