Islam and Islamists

Double wank and shit chips
Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10099
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Islam and Islamists

#1

Post by Kirbmarc » Mon Feb 29, 2016 11:46 am

Let's continue our exchange here:
Steersman wrote: That wasn't my argument or the motivation for that question - kind of disingenuous or careless of you to suggest otherwise. It was that you were rather obstinately refusing to acknowledge that many Western democracies have some quite credible restrictions on free speech, that it isn't an absolute:
This is factually incorrect. I have replied to both of your questions in a later tweet:
(It was posted on the 28th of February at the 10:36, GMT+1. It's not my fault if you haven't seen it yet).

Limited restrictions on free speech, such as the prohibition of speech which directly causes demonstrable harm (false alarms, false accusations, blackmail, slander, libel) don't imply the idea that all Muslim can be deported. "Hate speech" is too ill-defined to justify such an extreme reaction.

I have quoted the first amendment of the US constitution, and I will quote it again:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Kirbmarc wrote:I don't think that anyone of the people who you say support your arguments is in favor of banning Islam or deporting all Muslims who live in the West (except "those who piss on the Quran").
You might note that I haven't said they are; all I've said is that many argue that the distinction between "Muslim" and "Islamist" is rather moot and quite tenuous if not non-existent. You might try to be a little more careful about differentiating between what I say and what you infer I'm saying.
Namazie has explicitly rejected the idea that all Muslims are more or less Islamists:
To use her name to support your ideas is fundamentally dishonest. It's like quoting a paper in favor of a change in the paradigm in the theory of evolution by natural selection and use it to support creationism.
Kirbmarc wrote:Maybe you should ask Rizvi or Namazie or Hirsi Ali or Warraq what they think about your solutions to the issue of political Islam. You frequently claim that other people should check their assumptions but you never seem to challenge yours.
Not sure about the others but you might note, from the Wikipedia passage quoted earlier, that Hirsi Ali at least thinks "we are at war with Islam" and that, presumably or apparent, we should be governed accordingly. In which case, I rather doubt it is particularly wise to be allowing the existence of fifth columns in our midst.
A cultural war isn't the same as a military conflict. Do you really think that all Muslims are fifth columns for Islamists? This isn't what Hirsi Ali is suggesting: she's simply pointing out that those who have been called "moderate" often are anything but.

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10099
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#2

Post by Kirbmarc » Mon Feb 29, 2016 11:47 am

Steersman wrote: That wasn't my argument or the motivation for that question - kind of disingenuous or careless of you to suggest otherwise. It was that you were rather obstinately refusing to acknowledge that many Western democracies have some quite credible restrictions on free speech, that it isn't an absolute:
What does the fact of having Muslim relatives have to do with the idea of defending freedom of religion, by the way?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#3

Post by Steersman » Mon Feb 29, 2016 2:53 pm

Kirbmarc wrote:Let's continue our exchange here:
Steersman wrote: That wasn't my argument or the motivation for that question - kind of disingenuous or careless of you to suggest otherwise. It was that you were rather obstinately refusing to acknowledge that many Western democracies have some quite credible restrictions on free speech, that it isn't an absolute:
[.tweet][/tweet]
This is factually incorrect. I have replied to both of your questions in a later tweet:

[.tweet][/tweet]

(It was posted on the 28th of February at the 10:36, GMT+1. It's not my fault if you haven't seen it yet).
So fucking what? You might note that my original tweet was at 1:31 AM, and that my subsequent one was at 1:33 AM, both in response to your earlier rather obstinate refusal to answer my questions whether you agreed that many democracies place limits on free speech. That you subsequently did so - at 1:36 - hardly changes that fact or the past.
Kirbmarc wrote:Limited restrictions on free speech, such as the prohibition of speech which directly causes demonstrable harm (false alarms, false accusations, blackmail, slander, libel) don't imply the idea that all Muslim can be deported. "Hate speech" is too ill-defined to justify such an extreme reaction.
In your opinion.
Kirbmarc wrote:I have quoted the first amendment of the US constitution, and I will quote it again:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And you might note again that the Courts at least have created limits on most if not all of those.
Kirbmarc wrote:Namazie has explicitly rejected the idea that all Muslims are more or less Islamists: To use her name to support your ideas is fundamentally dishonest. It's like quoting a paper in favor of a change in the paradigm in the theory of evolution by natural selection and use it to support creationism.
Well, bully for her. And I would agree that it's untenable to argue "all Muslims"; as I've pointed out several times, the Pew Forum Survey notes that some 25% of US Muslims don't subscribe to the view that the Quran is the literal word of gawd. So they can stay - I'd just deport the balance. And close the borders to Muslims in general.

But I wonder where you managed to get the idea that I'm using "her name to support [my] ideas" - just looks like something you've pulled out of your arse. While I've agreed with and supported her during the Goldsmith (?) debacle, and likewise with her "One Law for All" efforts, I've also argued that she apparently has allegiances to family and friends who are, presumably, Muslim which has blinded her to the odious and quite problematic nature of Islam in general. Which, maybe arguably, showed up in her recent podcast with Harris - which, I might note, several other Pitters more or less agreed with.

And which was why I made reference to and quoted from the Wikipedia article on ad hominems which argues that, sometimes at least, "personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue". Which, to kill two birds with one stone, was what I thought might have been what motivates/motivated you to ignore the limitations on free speech.
Kirbmarc wrote:....

A cultural war isn't the same as a military conflict. Do you really think that all Muslims are fifth columns for Islamists? This isn't what Hirsi Ali is suggesting: she's simply pointing out that those who have been called "moderate" often are anything but.
Fuck. You too seem to have some difficulty differentiating between "some" and "all". Pray tell, where have I said that all Muslims so qualify? All I said was "the existence of fifth columns in our midst" without claiming that all Muslims were part of them. English a second language for you or you just naturally gravitate towards putting words into people's mouths?

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#4

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:15 pm

Lemme guess. Steersman is wanting to deport 'm all because ofSchrödinger's Islamist. Seems fair. Gotta protect the Fatherland. It would only be hypocritical if he was living on land forcibly taken away from native peoples. Or if he was advocating removal of a right without giving due consideration of how his precious rights might be similarly violated by people with a Xtian agenda. Golly, he might win me over yet. After all, I personally witnessed how well the whole Bosinian thing went, piece o' cake. No troubles at all. Yep.

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10099
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#5

Post by Kirbmarc » Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:23 am

Steersman wrote:So fucking what? You might note that my original tweet was at 1:31 AM, and that my subsequent one was at 1:33 AM, both in response to your earlier rather obstinate refusal to answer my questions whether you agreed that many democracies place limits on free speech. That you subsequently did so - at 1:36 - hardly changes that fact or the past.
There was no "obstinate refusal". Two minutes are not an incredibly long amount of time. Your question about Muslim relatives was clear derail by you from a discussion about civil rights and freedom of speech to a discussion of my eventual Muslim relatives.

You're building up a false narrative where I "obstinately refused" to acknowledge some point you made ad drove you to eventually ask about Muslim relatives when actually what happened is that I quoted the US constitution and you immediately inquired whether my refusal to agree with you was motivated by Muslim relatives. Are we to suppose to believe that you think that anyone who doesn't agree with your ideas about "population transfers" and banning Islam on the ground of the US constitution is actually doing so only because they have Muslim relatives?

Do you really think that your argument impossible to rationally criticize on the basis of the values of secular liberal democracies? Is anyone who doesn't agree to mass deportations and banning of Islam just doing so because of irrational, self-serving reasons (Muslim relatives)?
Kirbmarc wrote:Limited restrictions on free speech, such as the prohibition of speech which directly causes demonstrable harm (false alarms, false accusations, blackmail, slander, libel) don't imply the idea that all Muslim can be deported. "Hate speech" is too ill-defined to justify such an extreme reaction.
In your opinion.
Please quote a statement from a legal authority of secular liberal democracy, or from a liberal democratic thinker, which justifies mass deportation on religious basis.
Kirbmarc wrote:I have quoted the first amendment of the US constitution, and I will quote it again:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And you might note again that the Courts at least have created limits on most if not all of those.
No US court or any other court in a secular liberal democracy has ever justified mass deportation on religion basis.
But I wonder where you managed to get the idea that I'm using "her name to support [my] ideas" - just looks like something you've pulled out of your arse. While I've agreed with and supported her during the Goldsmith (?) debacle, and likewise with her "One Law for All" efforts, I've also argued that she apparently has allegiances to family and friends who are, presumably, Muslim which has blinded her to the odious and quite problematic nature of Islam in general. Which, maybe arguably, showed up in her recent podcast with Harris - which, I might note, several other Pitters more or less agreed with.
Straight from the horse's mouth:
In addition, my argument - and that of many others including Hirsi Ali, Namazie, & Warraq - is that the difference between "Muslim" and "Islamist" is largely if not entirely academic - at least in the majority of cases
As I've shown you, at least Namazie clearly disagrees.
Fuck. You too seem to have some difficulty differentiating between "some" and "all". Pray tell, where have I said that all Muslims so qualify? All I said was "the existence of fifth columns in our midst" without claiming that all Muslims were part of them. English a second language for you or you just naturally gravitate towards putting words into people's mouths?
You have repeatedly suggested that we should ban Islam and expel all Muslims who don't satisfy your personal standards ("piss on the Quran"). This clearly suggests that you think that all Muslims are at least potential fifth columns for Islamism.

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#6

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:57 am

Play over here Steers. Not in the main thread. Don't be such a pussy.

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#7

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:34 am

i_dont_see_the_resemblance.jpg
(47.85 KiB) Downloaded 452 times

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#8

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:40 am

And yes, I do now the real origin of the word. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pusillanimous

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#9

Post by Steersman » Tue Mar 01, 2016 1:46 pm

Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:So fucking what? You might note that my original tweet was at 1:31 AM, and that my subsequent one was at 1:33 AM, both in response to your earlier rather obstinate refusal to answer my questions whether you agreed that many democracies place limits on free speech. That you subsequently did so - at 1:36 - hardly changes that fact or the past.
There was no "obstinate refusal". Two minutes are not an incredibly long amount of time. Your question about Muslim relatives was clear derail by you from a discussion about civil rights and freedom of speech to a discussion of my eventual Muslim relatives.
It wasn't just "two minutes" - it was a minumum of 10 to 12:

And that's besides, if I'm not mistaken, our previous conversations on the same theme. Like pulling teeth to get you to admit that the freedom of speech has some quite reasonable limitations. We can quibble till the cows come home over which ones are justified and in which circumstances, but it kind of helps to agree on that principle as a starting point - and to not attempt to obfuscate, deny, repudiate or obscure it after the fact.
Kirbmarc wrote:Are we to suppose to believe that you think that anyone who doesn't agree with your ideas about "population transfers" and banning Islam on the ground of the US constitution is actually doing so only because they have Muslim relatives?
Of course not. And I didn't say that that was the only possible reason- all I did was ask whether you had such. And pointed out, via the Wikipedia quote on ad hominems, that sometimes personal motives can be "legitimate and relevant to the issue". And, as several other Pitters pointed out that Namazie was remarkably evasive and reluctant to consider the effects of open-door immigration policy for Muslims, it's hard not see that that is a possible contributing reason for her positions.
Kirbmarc wrote:Do you really think that your argument impossible to rationally criticize on the basis of the values of secular liberal democracies? Is anyone who doesn't agree to mass deportations and banning of Islam just doing so because of irrational, self-serving reasons (Muslim relatives)?
Of course not - rather disingenuous for you to suggest otherwise. But when people make pointed refusals to consider the facts then I think one is justified in asking whether there are other motives in play.
Kirbmarc wrote:Please quote a statement from a legal authority of secular liberal democracy, or from a liberal democratic thinker, which justifies mass deportation on religious basis. ....
Steersman wrote:And you might note again that the Courts at least have created limits on most if not all of those.
No US court or any other court in a secular liberal democracy has ever justified mass deportation on religion basis.
So freaking what? We change laws all the time - abortion, gay marriage, slavery, prostitution, etc., etc., et-fucking-cetera. They're not inscribed on stone tablets brought down from Mt. Sinai by Moses, Muhammad (piss be upon his name and all his ilk), or even George Washington after them speaking to Jehovah, Gabriel, or John Stuart Mill. They're living documents that change and evolve based on circumstances, evidence, and consensus - however flawed those might be.

And based on precedent, apropos of which, you might note the following from the UN protocol on refugees; :
The cornerstone of the 1951 Convention is the principle of non-refoulement contained in Article 33. According to this principle, a refugee should not be returned to a country where he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom. This protection may not be claimed by refugees who are reasonably regarded as a danger to the security of the country, or having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, [or] are considered a danger to the community.
The right to immigrate, like most if not all rights, isn’t an absolute, and if push comes to shove – as looks increasingly the case, then I figure Western governments have plenty of legs to stand on. And if I had a spare billion or two then I'd certainly consider spending them to get the laws changed to the effect that Islam is intrinsically "a danger to the community" - certainly Western ones which is a position that Warraq develops and supports in some detail. You may wish, though I doubt it, to consider looking at that other side of the coin.
Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:But I wonder where you managed to get the idea that I'm using "her name to support [my] ideas" - just looks like something you've pulled out of your arse. ....
Straight from the horse's mouth:
Steersman wrote:In addition, my argument - and that of many others including Hirsi Ali, Namazie, & Warraq - is that the difference between "Muslim" and "Islamist" is largely if not entirely academic - at least in the majority of cases
As I've shown you, at least Namazie clearly disagrees.

Busted, although I think that, from the context, I was probably thinking of Rizvi, particularly as I quoted his tweet immediately thereafter, and used Namazie's name in error. But still, I stand corrected, mea culpa, shoot me at dawn.
Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:Fuck. You too seem to have some difficulty differentiating between "some" and "all". Pray tell, where have I said that all Muslims so qualify? All I said was "the existence of fifth columns in our midst" without claiming that all Muslims were part of them. English a second language for you or you just naturally gravitate towards putting words into people's mouths?
You have repeatedly suggested that we should ban Islam and expel all Muslims who don't satisfy your personal standards ("piss on the Quran"). This clearly suggests that you think that all Muslims are at least potential fifth columns for Islamism.
You might note that there is a significant difference between potential and actual. And that I have noted, repeatedly though it doesn't seem to make much headway against your obtuseness or biases, that NOT all Muslims subscribe to a literalist interpretation of the Quran. Although those tend to be a majority - like 90%, particularly outside of Western cultures - i.e., where most Muslim immigrants come from. But it is those, and primarly if not entirely only those, who are more likely to constitute that fifth column.

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10099
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#10

Post by Kirbmarc » Tue Mar 01, 2016 2:43 pm

Steersman wrote:And that's besides, if I'm not mistaken, our previous conversations on the same theme. Like pulling teeth to get you to admit that the freedom of speech has some quite reasonable limitations. We can quibble till the cows come home over which ones are justified and in which circumstances, but it kind of helps to agree on that principle as a starting point - and to not attempt to obfuscate, deny, repudiate or obscure it after the fact.
I have never argued that "free speech has NO limits whatsoever". I have argued that these limits are precise in a secular liberal democracy, and that deportation on the basis of a religious opinion, the kind is a definite violation of the cardinal principles of secular liberal democracy, namely freedom of religion as expressed by the US constitutions and many others.

You seem to think that the fact that free speech has some limits automatically makes your proposals for mass deportations or banning a religion compatible with a secular liberal democracy. This isn't the case. The specifics of your proposals are exactly what matters. Discussing them isn't quibbling.

You're using the same motte and bailey technique of the SJWs. You propose mass deportations and the banning of Islam, but when you're challenged you only claim to be talking about the "limits of free speech" in general.
So freaking what? We change laws all the time - abortion, gay marriage, slavery, prostitution, etc., etc., et-fucking-cetera. They're not inscribed on stone tablets brought down from Mt. Sinai by Moses, Muhammad (piss be upon his name and all his ilk), or even George Washington after them speaking to Jehovah, Gabriel, or John Stuart Mill. They're living documents that change and evolve based on circumstances, evidence, and consensus - however flawed those might be.
Some principles of a secular liberal democracy cannot be changed without changing the nature of a secular liberal democracy into something else. For example you cannot change the law so that one religion becomes a state religion if you're supporting secularism. You can't change the law so that a dictator can govern a country without losing the democratic system. And you can't change the law so that people can be legally persecuted for having an opinion which we deem "dangerous" (even though it causes no direct harm) without violating the key principle of freedom of opinion and of religion, and thus without losing liberalism.

There's a reason why in every country with a constitution news law are judged according to whether or not they're constitutional.

Your mass deportations and banning of a religious opinion are blatantly unconstitutional according to the constitutions of pretty much every secular liberal democracy. There's no dancing around the issue: you're proposing blatant violations of civil rights on religious basis.
You might note that there is a significant difference between potential and actual. And that I have noted, repeatedly though it doesn't seem to make much headway against your obtuseness or biases, that NOT all Muslims subscribe to a literalist interpretation of the Quran. Although those tend to be a majority - like 90%, particularly outside of Western cultures - i.e., where most Muslim immigrants come from. But it is those, and primarly if not entirely only those, who are more likely to constitute that fifth column.
Of course not all Muslims are literalists. This is what I have been repeating to you from the beginning when talking about the difference between Islamist supremacy and Islam in general. Furthermore there are different degrees of literalism: Sufis or Ismailis have always argued for non-literalist interpretations of some verses of the Quran while they defend its divine nature in general.

It's also pretty rich of you to accuse me of being biased or obtuse when you have deliberately ignored what I wrote about Wahhabi/Salafi out of your dogmatic readings of Warraq, Rizvi and Hirsi Ali (you haven't even asked yourself whether those writers support your ideas, and if not why not) and of your profound ignorance of the differences between different Islamic movements.

(In general you're prone to urging others to check their biases but you don't seem so eager to check your own)

But even talking about the deportation or banning of "just the literalists" being a literalist doesn't necessarily means being a fifth column of Islamism. People aren't to be punished (with deportation or banning) only because of the potential of committing a crime (or of adhering to a movement which may justify others who commit crimes).

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#11

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:03 pm

You cannot abridge basic human rights of one people without endangering the rights of all. You are simply counting on you and like-minded fascists to be the ones making the call as to who is the danger to the community. To Christians, atheists present a danger. And don't mistake your intent here, fascism is the only word for it. You would destroy the liberal democratic values you pretend to espouse in order to save it. And what a wonderful precedent you would set.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Niemöller

Maybe get rid of the Quebecois Seperatists next, right? Bam, off to France with 'em. Better get rid of all Frenchy bastards, can't be too sure.

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#12

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:49 pm

Hey, Steersman, true or false- Quebecois terrorists have caused far more damage to Canada than Islamists?

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#13

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:51 pm

Refuse to speak the language, won't culturally assimilate...pretty clear danger. Bet they even have their own flag.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#14

Post by Steersman » Tue Mar 01, 2016 10:17 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Hey, Steersman, true or false- Quebecois terrorists have caused far more damage to Canada than Islamists?
Probably false. For starters, I think that the "only" thing the former are guilty of is murdering Pierre Laporte and James Cross; Islamists on the other hand are guilty of murdering 6 Canadians in Burkina Faso, and there were the two Canadian Forces members who were murdered in 2014. And then the various attempts by the same type of whackos.

While the Quebecois terrorists are bad, I kind of think the Islamists are substantially worse - for one thing, the former are not motivated by the "divine" scribblings of a psychotic and delusional pedophile.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#15

Post by Steersman » Tue Mar 01, 2016 10:36 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:You cannot abridge basic human rights of one people without endangering the rights of all. You are simply counting on you and like-minded fascists to be the ones making the call as to who is the danger to the community. To Christians, atheists present a danger. And don't mistake your intent here, fascism is the only word for it. You would destroy the liberal democratic values you pretend to espouse in order to save it. And what a wonderful precedent you would set. ....
Really don't think that that holds much if any water at all. We already "abridge" the "basic human rights" of all sorts of groups of people so it seems an egregious case of special pleading to insist that we can't do so for others - and with, arguably, substantially more justification. For instance, you might note the following from a Wikipedia article on freedom of speech:
Governments restrict speech with varying limitations. Common limitations on speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, campaign finance reform and oppression. Whether these limitations can be justified under the harm principle depends upon whether influencing a third party's opinions or actions adversely to the second party constitutes such harm or not. Governmental and other compulsory organizations often have policies restricting the freedom of speech for political reasons, for example, speech codes at state schools.
You want to try arguing that such restrictions on, say, child-pornographers are an unconscionable infringement on their "basic human right" to free speech?

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#16

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Tue Mar 01, 2016 11:19 pm

Steersman wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:You cannot abridge basic human rights of one people without endangering the rights of all. You are simply counting on you and like-minded fascists to be the ones making the call as to who is the danger to the community. To Christians, atheists present a danger. And don't mistake your intent here, fascism is the only word for it. You would destroy the liberal democratic values you pretend to espouse in order to save it. And what a wonderful precedent you would set. ....
Really don't think that that holds much if any water at all. We already "abridge" the "basic human rights" of all sorts of groups of people so it seems an egregious case of special pleading to insist that we can't do so for others - and with, arguably, substantially more justification. For instance, you might note the following from a Wikipedia article on freedom of speech:
Governments restrict speech with varying limitations. Common limitations on speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, campaign finance reform and oppression. Whether these limitations can be justified under the harm principle depends upon whether influencing a third party's opinions or actions adversely to the second party constitutes such harm or not. Governmental and other compulsory organizations often have policies restricting the freedom of speech for political reasons, for example, speech codes at state schools.
You want to try arguing that such restrictions on, say, child-pornographers are an unconscionable infringement on their "basic human right" to free speech?
Here's the difference, sport. We only abridge their rights AFTER a crime has been committed. A child cannot consent to pornography, ergo free speech is not the pertinent issue. Try again. Show where we've abridged rights before a crime has been committed and it wasn't a disaster. Like you know, Japanese internment in WWII. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internm ... _Americans

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#17

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Tue Mar 01, 2016 11:22 pm

The Bible has a lot of hate speech. Care to deport all Christians who take it as the literal word of God? How about Mormons?

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#18

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:04 am

Steersman wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Hey, Steersman, true or false- Quebecois terrorists have caused far more damage to Canada than Islamists?
Probably false. For starters, I think that the "only" thing the former are guilty of is murdering Pierre Laporte and James Cross; Islamists on the other hand are guilty of murdering 6 Canadians in Burkina Faso, and there were the two Canadian Forces members who were murdered in 2014. And then the various attempts by the same type of whackos.

While the Quebecois terrorists are bad, I kind of think the Islamists are substantially worse - for one thing, the former are not motivated by the "divine" scribblings of a psychotic and delusional pedophile.
Probably false?!? Reading comprehension fail there, sport. Try again. Quebecois have done tremendous damage. WTF does it matter if it's religiously inspired or not?

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#19

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:05 am


CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#20

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:06 am

Read it carefully, should be illuminating for you.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#21

Post by Steersman » Wed Mar 02, 2016 1:03 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Steersman wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:You cannot abridge basic human rights of one people without endangering the rights of all. You are simply counting on you and like-minded fascists to be the ones making the call as to who is the danger to the community. To Christians, atheists present a danger. And don't mistake your intent here, fascism is the only word for it. You would destroy the liberal democratic values you pretend to espouse in order to save it. And what a wonderful precedent you would set. ....
Really don't think that that holds much if any water at all. We already "abridge" the "basic human rights" of all sorts of groups of people so it seems an egregious case of special pleading to insist that we can't do so for others - and with, arguably, substantially more justification. For instance, you might note the following from a Wikipedia article on freedom of speech ....

You want to try arguing that such restrictions on, say, child-pornographers are an unconscionable infringement on their "basic human right" to free speech?
Here's the difference, sport. We only abridge their rights AFTER a crime has been committed. A child cannot consent to pornography, ergo free speech is not the pertinent issue. ….
Fuck off – sport. You seem rather decidedly unclear on the concept that laws are more or less designed to prevent various harms from occurring in the first place, i.e., BEFORE a crime is actually committed. Cases in point being the aforementioned child-pornography, sedition, libel, slander, etc., etc., et-fucking-cetera.

And, relative to the damn fine idea of banning Islam and the immigration if not deportation of Muslims, you might take a look at some of the contents of, and observations on, the rather barbarous, hateful, libelous, and great steaming pile of mephitic horse shit known as the Quran:
“I came to the absolute conviction that it is impossible…impossible…for any human being to read the biography of Mohammed and believe in it, and then emerge a psychologically and mentally healthy person.” - Syrian Psychiatrist Dr. Wafa Sultan
Racism is one of the most odious attitudes practiced by human beings. And Islam is an extremely racist divine creed. So odious is its sanction of slavery, which is intricately linked with racism. Here’s an instance of sacred Islamic text, inspiring racism and consequent slavery:

(Ishaq, p. 243): "I heard the Apostle say: 'Whoever wants to see Satan should look at Nabtal!' He was a black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks... Allah sent down concerning him: 'To those who annoy the Prophet there is a painful doom." [9:61] "Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, 'If a black man comes to you his heart is more gross than a donkey's."

Some 120 million blacks perished in the Islamic slavery holocaust. 75% of blacks died on the way to market and those black men who survived were castrated "based on the assumption that the blacks had an ungovernable sexual appetite. ….

The Medina part of the Quran is worse in inciting hatred and violence against the Jews than Mein Kampf. Here is a small sample of Allah’s divine sanction to hatred of the Jews (see more):

“Wretchedness and baseness were stamped on the Jews and they were visited with wrath from Allah.” [Quran 2.61]
“Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 4,000 years. But they are going to hell.” [Quran 2:96]
“God has cursed the Jews, transforming them into apes and swine and those who serve the devil.” [Quran 5.60] Islam Watch

2:65 Allah transforms disobedient Jews into apes

“And well you know there were those among you [Jews] that transgressed the Sabbath, and We said to them, ‘Be you apes, miserably slinking!’ ….

3:28 Don’t take unbelievers as friends and allies, unless it is for “fear of them,” i.e. deceptively for protection of oneself or of Islam

“Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends, rather than the believers — for whoso does that belongs not to Allah in anything — unless you have a fear of them. Allah warns you that You beware of Him, and unto Allah is the homecoming.”

9:5 Slay the idolaters

“Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.” …. Et cetera, et cetera, et-fucking-cetera. World Media Monitoring/Jihad Watch
And that is the horse shit you, and others, want to extend the right to free speech to? You might note rights without responsibilities is largely the definition for the term “anarchy”, at least the pejorative one. But that is what we as a free and more or less civilized society wish to grace with the somewhat respectable term “religion”, and condone by permitting them to the right to impose Sharia law and promote in their “schools”? If I had the bucks I’d sue Saudi Arabia [AKA Saudi Barbaria], and all of the madrasas outside of it for libel and slander – for starters – and throw everything but the kitchen sink at them.

By rights they all – at least all those who won’t “piss on the Quran” – should be given the bum’s rush, and not an open door or the least bit of respect.

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#22

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Wed Mar 02, 2016 4:18 pm

Steersman wrote: Snippity-Do
Fuck off – sport. You seem rather decidedly unclear on the concept that laws are more or less designed to prevent various harms from occurring in the first place, i.e., BEFORE a crime is actually committed. Cases in point being the aforementioned child-pornography, sedition, libel, slander, etc., etc., et-fucking-cetera.
Aww, gee, you don't like "sport*?" You seem pretty free with "dickhead" there, sport. So suck it up buttercup. You started with the insults, you started questioning people's reading comprehension, don't whine when it comes back to bite you.

Now, look again at those crimes you outlined- Child pornography, sedition, libel and slander...These are all crimes that are committed. They are not preemptively deporting people because a crime MIGHT be committed. You do understand this, correct? What would you call this other than a thought-crime? Most of the people involved will NEVER commit the crime you're worried about.
Steersman wrote: And, relative to the damn fine idea of banning Islam and the immigration if not deportation of Muslims, you might take a look at some of the contents of, and observations on, the rather barbarous, hateful, libelous, and great steaming pile of mephitic horse shit known as the Quran: Snipped, I've read the Koran, thanks.
Absolutely the Koran is garbage. That's not the argument. You want to deport everybody that believes in that garbage. That is advocating making thought-crime illegal.

The bible is full of horseshit too. A LOT of it. Is the Koran worse? I think so, but it's really not a contest. They are both crappy books, although you might note that the Koran was written well into the iron age, not bronze age as you claim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age So you think measuring the relative barbarity of each creed is a good idea? Or do you drop the hypocrisy and simply deport everybody that holds a heinous belief?
Steersman wrote: And that is the horse shit you, and others, want to extend the right to free speech to? You might note rights without responsibilities is largely the definition for the term “anarchy”, at least the pejorative one. But that is what we as a free and more or less civilized society wish to grace with the somewhat respectable term “religion”, and condone by permitting them to the right to impose Sharia law and promote in their “schools”? If I had the bucks I’d sue Saudi Arabia [AKA Saudi Barbaria], and all of the madrasas outside of it for libel and slander – for starters – and throw everything but the kitchen sink at them.

By rights they all – at least all those who won’t “piss on the Quran” – should be given the bum’s rush, and not an open door or the least bit of respect.
Yes, I do want to extend the freedom of speech to the Koran. To the bible, to even the trash of the KKK and Stormfront. To everybody I disagree with right up to the point they commit a crime. Even you.

Because freedom of speech means that you get to disagree with people. Censoring doesn't work. Trying to police thought-crime doesn't work, and is fascist. There is no other word for it.

I notice you carefully aren't addressing the issue of the Quebecois terrorists. Here is a clear and present danger to your country, and nearly half of them say they want to leave your country. They have terrorized and bombed the "English." They refuse to assimilate. They make your leadership bend to positively supine lengths to get along. Yet you give them a pass. I wonder why?

So examine your own bias. And answer these little niggling questions, they might help make your point a little clearer.

1. Is it rational, moral or practical to make thought-crime illegal? If deporting people that haven't committed a crime but embrace faulty beliefs isn't a thought-crime, what would you call it?

2. If the Bible is found to be barbaric, bronze-age beliefs, should all those that endorse the Bible receive similar deportation as those that embrace the Koran?

3. Who gets to decide which preemptive crimes should be made illegal? Is it moral or logical simply to stop with Islam? Do you really believe that once the government has the power to punish thought-crime, it will stop with just the Muslims?

4. Is the human cost, in loss of liberty, lives and human tragedy worth the cost of deporting people? These are real people, many of whom have established lives and livelihoods in their new countries. They are mostly law-abiding citizens that pay taxes and contribute to society. If you'd care to read deeper about what happened during these population transfers, it would hopefully blunt your enthusiasm a bit. They were deeply hurtful to the people involved. Many people died or lost their livelihoods. It was a huge catastrophe for the affected peoples. I have personal experience with the fun involved in Bosnia. You ought consider this. Or acknowledge that you have no empathy for the affected people.

5. Do you believe in human rights? If theirs are to be curtailed, why not yours? Your stated position is in violation of Canadian law, so why not deport your own self?

6. What do you call your ideology other than fascism? Or do you actually embrace the term?

Thanks for clearing this up, sport*. Appreciate it.

*If you want to stop with the insults, then stop yourself. I think sport is fairly tame, really. If you keep it up, why, I am absolutely cool with that as well. Pro-tip- Stop questioning everybody's reading comprehension that disagrees with you. It is especially cringe-worthy that you confessed to not reading the source material yourself.

Finally, stop conflating unfettered immigration and deporting all believing Muslims. I am all for serious restraints on immigration. This is not at all the same as saying "kick 'em all out." I don't like the Koran, I strongly condemn Islam. But I am all in favor of human rights. This means that I extend rights to those that I disagree with, those that I don't like. That is civilization, that is Western values. Not the fascism that you espouse.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#23

Post by Steersman » Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:16 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Steersman wrote: Snippity-Do
Fuck off – sport. You seem rather decidedly unclear on the concept that laws are more or less designed to prevent various harms from occurring in the first place, i.e., BEFORE a crime is actually committed. Cases in point being the aforementioned child-pornography, sedition, libel, slander, etc., etc., et-fucking-cetera.
....

Now, look again at those crimes you outlined- Child pornography, sedition, libel and slander...These are all crimes that are committed. They are not preemptively deporting people because a crime MIGHT be committed. You do understand this, correct? What would you call this other than a thought-crime? Most of the people involved will NEVER commit the crime you're worried about.
Steersman wrote: And, relative to the damn fine idea of banning Islam and the immigration if not deportation of Muslims, you might take a look at some of the contents of, and observations on, the rather barbarous, hateful, libelous, and great steaming pile of mephitic horse shit known as the Quran: Snipped, I've read the Koran, thanks.
Absolutely the Koran is garbage. That's not the argument. You want to deport everybody that believes in that garbage. That is advocating making thought-crime illegal.
You seem unclear on the concept, or the argument, that the Quran is, in itself, a crime - libel for one thing. It is most emphatically not a case of "making thought-crime illegal"; it's a case of penalizing already committed ones - which are of a rather egregious nature. All of your subsequent blathering about some crimes that some Muslims might commit is really so much thrashing of a strawman, so many red herrings thrown to obscure the main issue. Either that or you haven't bothered to read the links I've provided or haven't understood the central elements of them. Of particular note, this passage from the article on the harms entailed in hate speech:
Communication theory provides some insight into the harms caused by hate speech. According to the ritual model of communication, racist expressions allow minorities to be categorized with negative attributes tied to them, and are directly harmful to them. Matsuda et al. (1993)[15] found that racist speech could cause in the recipient of the message direct physical and emotional changes. The repeated use of such expressions cause and reinforce the subordination of these minorities. This has been enough to sway the court in previous cases such as Brown v. Board of Education in USA, in which the [US Supreme] Court stated that segregation "generates a feeling of inferiority as to their [African Americans’] status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." The idea that hate speech is a mechanism of subordination is supported by scholarly evidence.
And further, a related passage from the article on the right to freedom of speech which you apparently continue to insist is an unfettered absolute:
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights .... Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".
Now, we might quibble about how much harm is produced by the actual, manifest, racist and sexist characterizations in the Quran, and what penalties are appropriate, although I think banning the "religion" is entirely justified. But the existence of such libelous characterizations is, as far as I'm concerned, the crux of the matter - and on which there seems to be no shortage of evidence and argument to justify my position.
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:.... Pro-tip- Stop questioning everybody's reading comprehension that disagrees with you. It is especially cringe-worthy that you confessed to not reading the source material yourself.
I'll stop that questioning when people, you in particular, give some evidence of actually addressing the points I've raised, and the positions and articles cited, rather than going off on tangents, thrashing the hell out of strawmen, and cluttering up the field with boat-loads of red herrings. And you might note that it frequently isn't necessary to read every last bit, piece, and citation in an article to get the gist of it - that's the benefit of abstracts and topic paragraphs and sentences.
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Finally, stop conflating unfettered immigration and deporting all believing Muslims. I am all for serious restraints on immigration. This is not at all the same as saying "kick 'em all out." I don't like the Koran, I strongly condemn Islam. But I am all in favor of human rights. This means that I extend rights to those that I disagree with, those that I don't like. That is civilization, that is Western values. Not the fascism that you espouse.
Well, I'm glad to see you're supportive of "serious restraints on immigration". Though one might wonder whether that's in general or of Muslims in particular. And if it is the latter then one might also wonder how that is anything but a coy, if not hypocritical, dressing up of an intent to ban Islam - which, of course, I would happily support.

As for "the fascism" that I supposedly espouse, one might wonder whether you would consider that earlier referenced case - i.e., Brown v. Board of Education which put an end to segregation in the US - as a similar manifestation of fascism as it too used the power of the state to curtail the odious effects of hate.

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#24

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:55 pm

Steersman wrote:SNIP
You seem unclear on the concept, or the argument, that the Quran is, in itself, a crime - libel for one thing. It is most emphatically not a case of "making thought-crime illegal"; it's a case of penalizing already committed ones - which are of a rather egregious nature. All of your subsequent blathering about some crimes that some Muslims might commit is really so much thrashing of a strawman, so many red herrings thrown to obscure the main issue. Either that or you haven't bothered to read the links I've provided or haven't understood the central elements of them. Of particular note, this passage from the article on the harms entailed in hate speech:
Communication theory provides some insight into the harms caused by hate speech. According to the ritual model of communication, racist expressions allow minorities to be categorized with negative attributes tied to them, and are directly harmful to them. Matsuda et al. (1993)[15] found that racist speech could cause in the recipient of the message direct physical and emotional changes. The repeated use of such expressions cause and reinforce the subordination of these minorities. This has been enough to sway the court in previous cases such as Brown v. Board of Education in USA, in which the [US Supreme] Court stated that segregation "generates a feeling of inferiority as to their [African Americans’] status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." The idea that hate speech is a mechanism of subordination is supported by scholarly evidence.
And further, a related passage from the article on the right to freedom of speech which you apparently continue to insist is an unfettered absolute:
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights .... Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".
Now, we might quibble about how much harm is produced by the actual, manifest, racist and sexist characterizations in the Quran, and what penalties are appropriate, although I think banning the "religion" is entirely justified. But the existence of such libelous characterizations is, as far as I'm concerned, the crux of the matter - and on which there seems to be no shortage of evidence and argument to justify my position.


I'll stop that questioning when people, you in particular, give some evidence of actually addressing the points I've raised, and the positions and articles cited, rather than going off on tangents, thrashing the hell out of strawmen, and cluttering up the field with boat-loads of red herrings. And you might note that it frequently isn't necessary to read every last bit, piece, and citation in an article to get the gist of it - that's the benefit of abstracts and topic paragraphs and sentences.
What "libel" is in the Koran that is not in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, homeopathy texts and most feminist screeds? Why does the Koran get special pleading to be the worst of the bunch? Do you have any empirical proof that it is more harmful than the other beliefs?

The word you use for libel is not the legal definition. You seem to be making it up on your own. How does the Koran specifically defame someone? Why do you suppose nobody has never, ever used that argument before? (Pro-tip: It's not because you're a brilliant person that has come across a novel argument. Try researching a little before you trot out such as spectacular failure.)

What strawmen? Define. Your actual argument to deport would include everybody you or somebody else holds to be a harmful belief. I pointed out the failure of this idea. So define the strawmen. Just saying that they are there are not enough. What Red Herrings? Define. I actually addressed your faulty argument.

Define exactly which argument I am not addressing. Your vague generalities do not an argument make. You said people should be deported for holding odious beliefs. I pointed out that many other people than Muslims hold odious beliefs. You then handwave everything away.

As to the "gist", you seem to seriously lack understanding of the actual arguments. Seriously, I am embarrassed for you. You throw out articles as though they are arguments in favor of your position. The population transfers just said what happened, not what the human and civil rights cost was. They are a historical accounting, not an endorsement.
Steersman wrote: As for "the fascism" that I supposedly espouse, one might wonder whether you would consider that earlier referenced case - i.e., Brown v. Board of Education which put an end to segregation in the US - as a similar manifestation of fascism as it too used the power of the state to curtail the odious effects of hate.
Very telling, Steers. No, they dictated the use of public money for public schools. They did not tell people what to think or deport people for being racist. Fail. The government has the right to dictate what happens in government funded schools. Talk about your red herring arguments. They did it correct racism, but notice how they did it. No deportations, no making speech or thought illegal.

Now answer the questions in my previous post. Or just say that you believe strongly in fascism, and that you want special pleading to deport Muslims because you feel somehow that they are more odious than the other odious beliefs out there. Because everything that Muslims have done, other groups have done as well. So define the "crux" of the matter, as you put it. You say the Muslims are dangerous, I point out that other groups have done much more harm in your tiny, helpless home country and you fail spectacularly to address it. Just gloss it over. Your arguments have no logic at all, just your feelings and references to Wikipedia and racist publications. Notice the company you keep on the #BanIslam hashtag. Dude, that is some fucked up shit.

I addressed your arguments, Steersman. Have the courtesy to address mine. All of them, if you please.

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#25

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:39 pm

One more thing, Steers...don't you find it ironic that your argument regarding free speech is the same argument SJWs use to try to deny us our free speech? Something to keep in mind.

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10099
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#26

Post by Kirbmarc » Thu Mar 03, 2016 2:08 am

You seem unclear on the concept, or the argument, that the Quran is, in itself, a crime - libel for one thing. It is most emphatically not a case of "making thought-crime illegal"; it's a case of penalizing already committed ones - which are of a rather egregious nature
Not according to what the courts define as libel:
Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.
the Court recognized a strong and legitimate state interest in compensating private individuals for injury to reputation, but cautioned that this interest extends no further than compensation for actual injury. The Gertz Court held that in a case involving a matter of public concern, recovery of presumed or punitive damages is not permitted without a showing of malice; that is, unless liability is based on a showing of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
The Quran doesn't explicitly defame any living person (for understandable reasons: anyone named in the Quran has been dead for centuries). There cannot be no claim of actual injury to reputation if there is no name of a private individual attached to a false accusation.

Furthermore there cannot be any "showing of knowledge" that the author(s) of the Quran knew that what is written in the Quran is false, or that they had a reckless disregard for the truth. Indeed people believe in the truth of the Quran, so presumably did its author(s). Muslims have even developed philosophical schools to defend the alleged truth of the Quran.

If the Quran is libel then the De Bello Gallico, which defames a great number of dead people, or the Histories of Herodotus, , which are filled with defamations of name (long dead) individuals, are also libel.
Either that or you haven't bothered to read the links I've provided or haven't understood the central elements of them. Of particular note, this passage from the article on the harms entailed in hate speech:
On hate speech, and on why it's not constitutional:
there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements.
Not the case with the Quran. Everyone named in that book is dead.
The same is true of the other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future).
There's no specific date for threats in the Quran, so again this isn't the case.
The Supreme Court did, in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), uphold a “group libel” law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true, and were said with “good motives” and for “justifiable ends.” But this too was treated by the Court as just a special case of a broader First Amendment exception — the one for libel generally. And Beauharnais is widely understood to no longer be good law, given the Court’s restrictions on the libel exception. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) (rejecting the view that libel is categorically unprotected, and holding that the libel exception requires a showing that the libelous accusations be “of and concerning” a particular person); Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) (generally rejecting the view that a defense of truth can be limited to speech that is said for “good motives” and for “justifiable ends”); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps (1986) (generally rejecting the view that the burden of proving truth can be placed on the defendant); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) (holding that singling bigoted speech is unconstitutional, even when that speech fits within a First Amendment exception); Nuxoll ex rel. Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. # 204, 523 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 2008) (concluding that Beauharnais is no longer good law); Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1200 (9th Cir. 1989) (likewise); Am. Booksellers Ass’n, Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323, 331 n.3 (7th Cir. 1985) (likewise); Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1205 (7th Cir. 1978) (likewise); Tollett v. United States, 485 F.2d 1087, 1094 n.14 (8th Cir. 1973) (likewise); Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies 1043-45 (4th ed. 2011); Laurence Tribe, Constitutional Law, §12-17, at 926; Toni M. Massaro, Equality and Freedom of Expression: The Hate Speech Dilemma, 32 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 211, 219 (1991); Robert C. Post, Cultural Heterogeneity and Law: Pornography, Blasphemy, and the First Amendment, 76 Calif. L. Rev. 297, 330-31 (1988).
And as we've seen before, Beauharnais was an ill-defined law and no longer applies. The Quran isn't libel.
Finally, “hostile environment harassment law” has sometimes been read as applying civil liability — or administrative discipline by universities — to allegedly bigoted speech in workplaces, universities, and places of public accommodation. There is a hot debate on whether those restrictions are indeed constitutional; they have generally been held unconstitutional when applied to universities, but decisions are mixed as to civil liability based on speech that creates hostile environments in workplaces (see the pages linked to at this site for more information on the subject). But even when those restrictions have been upheld, they have been justified precisely on the rationale that they do not criminalize speech (or otherwise punish it) in society at large, but only apply to particular contexts, such as workplaces.
Not the case for the Quran.

The Quran is a hateful, vile book. This doesn't mean that it should be made illegal, no more than the Bible or Dianetics or Mao's Red Book or other hateful, vile books.
I'll stop that questioning when people, you in particular, give some evidence of actually addressing the points I've raised, and the positions and articles cited, rather than going off on tangents, thrashing the hell out of strawmen, and cluttering up the field with boat-loads of red herrings. And you might note that it frequently isn't necessary to read every last bit, piece, and citation in an article to get the gist of it - that's the benefit of abstracts and topic paragraphs and sentences.
We've never did what you say we did.

Anyway I've posted evidence that fully addresses your claim that the Quran is "libel" or that "hate speech" is a well-defined legal defintion. Take some time to address them. Since they're not something I wrote, but evidence, you can't just dismiss them as "tangents", "strawmen" or "red herrings".

Have fun.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#27

Post by Steersman » Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:08 am

Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:You seem unclear on the concept, or the argument, that the Quran is, in itself, a crime - libel for one thing. It is most emphatically not a case of "making thought-crime illegal"; it's a case of penalizing already committed ones - which are of a rather egregious nature
Not according to what the courts define as libel:
Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.
….
I did say “the argument”. But I’ll concede that according to US law the Quran doesn’t apparently qualify as libel there. However, you did point out that, at one time at least, “group libel” was proscribed:
The Supreme Court did, in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), uphold a “group libel” law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true, and were said with “good motives” and for “justifiable ends.” But this too was treated by the Court as just a special case of a broader First Amendment exception — the one for libel generally. And Beauharnais is widely understood to no longer be good law, given the Court’s restrictions on the libel exception. ….
But I’ll also argue that there is maybe some justification for reviewing that argument, and going back to a more “sensible” perspective. And you might note the article on defamation quotes this definition from a law book as follows:
Defamation—also calumny, vilification, and traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation.
And for an instance of other countries’ support for that concept and principle, you might also note that German law on hate speech certainly seems to be equivalent to the Beauharnais position:
In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("incitement of popular hatred") is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment.[31] Section 130 makes it a crime to publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity. Thus for instance it is illegal to publicly call certain ethnic groups "maggots" or "freeloaders". Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g., the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).
Diddly squat to do with long-dead individual persons, but a lot to do with the specific harms such speech has on living groups of people. Seems a pretty credible principle to me, one entirely applicable to the Quran, and a precedent that other Western countries would do well to emulate.
Kirbmarc wrote:The Quran is a hateful, vile book. This doesn't mean that it should be made illegal, no more than the Bible or Dianetics or Mao's Red Book or other hateful, vile books.
Given that opinion – which I of course fully endorse, although I expect there are a few reasonable nuggets in amongst the horse shit – I’m surprised that you would apparently condone or support the immigration of Muslims. An ounce of prevention and all that.
Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:I'll stop that questioning when people, you in particular, give some evidence of actually addressing the points I've raised, and the positions and articles cited, rather than going off on tangents, thrashing the hell out of strawmen, and cluttering up the field with boat-loads of red herrings. ….
We've never did what you say we did.
Who’s “we”? My comment was entirely general except for the specific qualification of the Captain, although I did have various “usual suspects” and topics in mind, not all of which are related to Islam. However, while I don’t have any specific bill-of-particulars in hand, I kind of get the impression that your reluctance to address the question of whether the hate speech of the Quran should be construed as libelous certainly looks like it’s shading in that direction. That the US doesn’t currently define it as such seems rather secondary to the question of whether or not it should be. As I pointed out, laws change all the time – the question is whether the changes suggested hold water or not.
Kirbmarc wrote:… Since they're not something I wrote, but evidence, you can't just dismiss them as "tangents", "strawmen" or "red herrings".

Have fun.
Finally, something I can get my teeth into! ;-) Although still kind of light fare

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10099
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#28

Post by Kirbmarc » Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:16 am

Steersman wrote:
The Supreme Court did, in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), uphold a “group libel” law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true, and were said with “good motives” and for “justifiable ends.” But this too was treated by the Court as just a special case of a broader First Amendment exception — the one for libel generally. And Beauharnais is widely understood to no longer be good law, given the Court’s restrictions on the libel exception. ….
Beauharnais is a terrible law. Its definition of "good motives" and "justifiable ends" is incredibly vague. People could use Beauharnais as a precedent to outlaw any criticism of religion, including your criticism of Islam.

You've frequently written that Islam is a terrible religion, a cult of death, a political program from hegemony, bigoted, etc. By and large I agree (although this true at its fullest for the Wahabi/Salafi schools, less so for other schools of though within Islam).

According to an interpretation of Beauharnais your statements about Islam could be seen as "exposing a religious group to contempt and hatred". Since you're also advocating banning Islam and expelling Muslims, few judges would argue that you had "good motives" for "justifiable ends" (since your motives and ends go against the First Amendment).

If Beauharnais was applied consistently you'd be in jail.
German law on hate speech certainly seems to be equivalent to the Beauharnais position:
In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("incitement of popular hatred") is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment.[31] Section 130 makes it a crime to publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity. Thus for instance it is illegal to publicly call certain ethnic groups "maggots" or "freeloaders". Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g., the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).
Diddly squat to do with long-dead individual persons, but a lot to do with the specific harms such speech has on living groups of people. Seems a pretty credible principle to me, one entirely applicable to the Quran, and a precedent that other Western countries would do well to emulate.
Do you see the Germans apply their hate speech laws to the Quran? Have you asked yourself why they don't? (Hint: it may have something to do with freedom of religion).

The German law is terrible. Again, if you wrote what you wrote in this forum in Germany you could be arrested.
Kirbmarc wrote:The Quran is a hateful, vile book. This doesn't mean that it should be made illegal, no more than the Bible or Dianetics or Mao's Red Book or other hateful, vile books.
Given that opinion – which I of course fully endorse, although I expect there are a few reasonable nuggets in amongst the horse shit – I’m surprised that you would apparently condone or support the immigration of Muslims. An ounce of prevention and all that.
There are nuggets in the horse shit (far and few between, but they are there). The same thing is true for the Bible.

The thing about condoning or supporting immigration of Muslims is that like it or not immigration of Muslims has been a fact for years. We already have significant Muslim communities in the "West". Also the appeal of the "West" in the eyes of many Muslim isn't likely to go away any time soon.

People really want to immigrate to the West. They travel through deserts and seas, often in extremely harsh conditions, to get here. Their motivation is pretty strong, so I don't think that simply closing borders to anyone would stop them or deter them. Someone who has risked death by dehydration or drowning isn't going to be stopped by some walls.

The only ways to completely halt immigration in a significant fashion are incredibly unethical and fall short of genocide. Leaving people to die in the desert or the sea is also incredibly unethical.

But even leaving ethics aside, if you oppose immigration with violence or harsh rejection you're going to create an environment which fosters more violence. If your navy guns down the boats of the immigrants or simply lets them drown instead of rescuing them, the relatives of those dead immigrants and people who feel affinity with them are going to become hostile to your country, and (for example) support terrorist groups which are going to kill your citizens.

With that said a completely "open doors" policy is also full of risks and just isn't viable.

So what is the right choice?

As far as I can tell (and I'm aware that what I'm saying has its limits) the solution isn't the prevent immigration but to carefully control it.

Institute avenues for legal immigration tied to job opportunities (i.e. you can come if you've found a job in the country, for a period which depends on a variety of reasons) and for refugees (through careful vetting and evaluating individual histories and conditions, not on a "everyone from Country X is a refugee" basis). Rescue illegal immigrants and grant them the respect of their basic human rights, but also make sure that they're brought back to their country of origin (they can reapply for legal immigration in the future, but they have to understand how to do it through proper channels).

Once immigrants and refugees are in the country, make sure they understand that their rights imply responsibilities: expel people who violate your county's laws, expect them to accept the laws of your country (one law for the land, no room for their :oops: religious/cultural laws), monitor the activity of places of cult (read their statements, control the flow of their fundings, make sure that they're not encouraging people to break the laws), teach the language of the land and promote secularism and liberal values (women's rights, LGBT rights) in all immigrant communities and tie the renewal of permit to stay to a basic degree of knowledge of the language of the land and to having a clean record, make sure that renovation of the permit to with no excuses for "cultural" reasons, disestablish and firmly refuse the establishment of publicly funded religious schools, and closely monitor the activity of private religious schools, integrate the children of immigrants into your culture by teaching them the values of secularism, liberalism and democracy in the public schools (which they must attend, just like the children of the native population)...the list goes on.

In short immigrants and refugees need to understand that they're guests. They're welcome when they have a job, try to learn the language of the land, respect the laws and principles of the land and are open to the idea of control of fundings and the messages they spread. Otherwise they've outstayed their welcome.

Countries also need to pay no attention to the Regressive Left and the SJWs who say that monitoring places of cult and schools is racist, or that evaluating the age of a "teenage" refugee through scientifically reliable methods (and not by taking their words at face value) is "discrimination", that criticizing and mocking Islam is "racist" etc. These loons must be treated as the loons they are: mocked, exposed, and ostracized by non-loony people (this is what we do here).

Also Islam apologists (Reza Aslan and others) should be challenged, criticized, and mocked with no limits of "religious defamation" (see why it's important NOT to have "religious defamation" laws, Steers? The Muslim apologists, among others, are sure as hell going to exploit them).

This is a job for secularist groups. Atheist/skeptic groups should be criticizing, satirizing and mocking Islam, pointing out the bad behavior of Muslims, rejecting any excuse, supporting secular liberal democracies and the integration of Muslims into Western culture. Instead we had an invasion of SJWs who spend their time discussing whether the Charlie Hebdo cartoons were racist instead of talking about the authoritarianism in Islam and of Muslim apologists. We had people who think that Islamisn't a threat "compared to homegrown theocrats".

Of course problems are still going to occur even if do everything I wrote. That's when you need the police to intervene, and to do it quickly and smartly. In Cologne, for example, the police had water cannons and other means of crowd control: they used them against the Pegida protesters in the next days. A large crowd of rowdy people near a station doesn't go unnoticed to the cameras or the citizens. At the first warning sign that a threatening situation was about to happen the police should have been dispatched, armed with those water cannons and other means of crowd dispersal, ready to intervene. I bet that the crowd would have either behaved better or it would have broken down.

What would have been even better was if the police understood that New Year's Eve is usually an occasion for mayhem, and so police officers should have been on duty (it sucks to work on a holiday, but it's your job), places where people are likely to form crowds should have been monitored by constant police presence, with the option of calling for backup quickly if the crowd seems to get bigger and rowdier. Crowd control means should have been at disposal of police.

Nothing of this sort was done. Instead not only did the police ignore any warning signs, they basically stood by for four hours while the crimes were already been committed. It's useful to ask ourselves why, and it's likely that at least some reasons for this failure (other than possible lack of personnel on a holiday) were due to a desire of the authorities in Cologne not to appear as racists for monitoring or acting against (with the due amount of force) crowds of "brown people".

When the police fails to react, it's a major disgrace which shouldn't be swept under the carpet, but should be exposed immediately. Those responsible (the chief of local police, the mayor) have to resign immediately, no matter how good their excuses: if you're the boss you're always responsible when something goes wrong. If they don't want to resign their bosses should have forced them to do so.

Victims should have been listened to, perpetrators should have been arrested and expelled, and the local communities from where the perpetrators come from should be monitored. Some good questions that the German secret service should have asked are what did the imams say about the event? Did they blame the victims? If so, what are their names, and where do they come from? Who donated money to their mosque? Are their phones under control? Do they have a history of excusing bad behavior? If they're not citizens, when are their permits of stay going to be renewed, and should we renew them? If they're citizens, have they spent some time abroad? Where? Do their friends and acquaintances include people known for ties to Islamist organizations?

For example a Sami Abu-Yusuf, not coincidentally a Salafist imam, blamed the victims. He should immediately become a subject of a police/secret service investigation if he hasn't been already: the fundings of his mosque should be monitored, his cell phone ad other means of communication should be under control (I bet that there are interesting things to find out) and if there's a pattern of bad behavior on his part he and others involved in his mosqueshould have the permits of stay revoked, or they should be arrested.
Who’s “we”? My comment was entirely general except for the specific qualification of the Captain, although I did have various “usual suspects” and topics in mind, not all of which are related to Islam. However, while I don’t have any specific bill-of-particulars in hand, I kind of get the impression that your reluctance to address the question of whether the hate speech of the Quran should be construed as libelous certainly looks like it’s shading in that direction.That the US doesn’t currently define it as such seems rather secondary to the question of whether or not it should be. As I pointed out, laws change all the time – the question is whether the changes suggested hold water or not.
I have addressed it. I think that hate speech laws in general are too vague, too prone to abuse (including abuse from Muslim apologists who would like to put people like you in jail) and too confusing to be of any help.

"Hate speech" is a confused concept: is arguing (like you have done) that Islam is so bad that it should be banned and Muslims expelled (except those who reject the core message of Islam) "hate speech" or "group libel" because it's likely to incite contempt, hatred and discrimination against a religious group (Muslims)? If this isn't the case, then why is the Quran to be considered "hate speech" or "group libel"?

What is the threshold for "hate speech"? This isn't clear and can never be clear, because all negative judgments of value about groups can be argued to be "hate speech". Unlike libel of specific person, which include some precise statement, "group libel" is by its nature vague and inconsistent. Saying "Mr. Cheat is a known and convicted criminal" is a precise statement. If Mr. Cheat hasn't been convicted of any crimes, that's a false statement, and one likely to constitute libel if published.

"Group libel", by its nature, isn't a precise definition. Is saying "Muslims are terrorists" "group libel"? What about "Islam is a hate group"? If not, why not? (You've supported the second sentence - written by Scented Nectar - here).

"Group libel" ends up only restricting the possibility of criticism for everyone. Unless you're going to apply some kind of special pleading to Islam, there's no way you can justify banning Islam because it's "group libel" without also justifying banning your ideas, too.

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#29

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:33 am

Steersman should read his own sig line sometime.

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#30

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Fri Mar 04, 2016 9:05 am

We seem to have gone from " The Koran should be illegal, because it's clearly libel" to "it's not libel, but it should be." With nary a mention of the fact that equal application of this law would make all religious texts illegal. Indeed, as Kirbmarc pointed out, these same laws would silence you, Steers.

You failed to successfully answer any of my points. You whole position seems to boil down to "I really don't like Islam, and I want to rationalize making it illegal, while somehow ignoring every other odious practice done in Western culture."

You are such a lightweight. Shifting goalposts, weasel definitions and most shoddy understanding of words and concepts that you throw about. You seem honestly bumfuzzled that you can't classify a religious scripture as hate speech, or what it would mean to YOUR free speech should laws like this be enacted.

Try running your ideas past a lawyer, even a far-right one. Lemme know how that works out for you.

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#31

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:17 pm

Irony.
freedom of expression.jpg
(55.02 KiB) Downloaded 340 times
We have seen the enemy...

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#32

Post by Steersman » Sat Mar 05, 2016 1:23 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Irony.
freedom of expression.jpg
We have seen the enemy...
Unclear on the concept of limitations thereon. Maybe for some not particularly honourable reasons?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#33

Post by Steersman » Sat Mar 05, 2016 1:26 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:We seem to have gone from " The Koran should be illegal, because it's clearly libel" to "it's not libel, but it should be." ....
Weren't you throwing stones at me not long ago for never bowing to facts?
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:With nary a mention of the fact that equal application of this law would make all religious texts illegal. Indeed, as Kirbmarc pointed out, these same laws would silence you, Steers..
Horse shit.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#34

Post by Steersman » Sat Mar 05, 2016 1:28 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Steersman should read his own sig line sometime.
I do, every day. Have a little candle-lit shrine to Francis Bacon [PBUH] where I and some of his many fellow devotees read from his collected works. And then go out amongst the community asking passerby whether they have read the "good news" about him ....

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#35

Post by Steersman » Sat Mar 05, 2016 1:40 pm

Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:
The Supreme Court did, in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), uphold a “group libel” law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true, and were said with “good motives” and for “justifiable ends.”. ….
Beauharnais is a terrible law. Its definition of "good motives" and "justifiable ends" is incredibly vague. People could use Beauharnais as a precedent to outlaw any criticism of religion, including your criticism of Islam.
A “terrible law” because of the vagueness of “good motives and justifiable ends”, or because principle behind it is invalid? There is a difference between a principle and its implementation, you know; a little disingenuous, or a case of throwing a boat-load of red-herrings on the field, to conflate the two.
Kirbmarc wrote:You've frequently written that Islam is a terrible religion, a cult of death, a political program from hegemony, bigoted, etc. By and large I agree (although this true at its fullest for the Wahabi/Salafi schools, less so for other schools of though within Islam).
Progress; ever onward and upward. ;-) However, that bit about the various schools looks like another boatload of red herrings. The fact of the matter is that many more Muslims take the Quran to be literally true than do Christians about the Bible – some 33% Christians according to Gallup, and some 50% to 75% of American Muslims according to Pew, and I expect the numbers to be substantially higher for recent or prospective Muslim immigrants. And rather disingenuous to point, as you did earlier, to some Sufis accepting a metaphorical interpretation of some passages when the crux of the matter is that the belief that the Quran is the literal word of gawd puts it outside the realm of rational and civilized debate – and of criticism and evolution. You might note the following by a Canadian “Christian” priestess, Gretta Vosper, on the issue of literalism in the Bible but more applicable to the Quran:
"Those who recognize the Bible's claim to be the word of God as the monster in the tub with the baby," are the ones who must throw that monster out with the bathwater.

Why I have quoted Huxley earlier and repeatedly – “Delenda est”, indeed.
Kirbmarc wrote:According to an interpretation of Beauharnais your statements about Islam could be seen as "exposing a religious group to contempt and hatred". Since you're also advocating banning Islam and expelling Muslims, few judges would argue that you had "good motives" for "justifiable ends" (since your motives and ends go against the First Amendment).

If Beauharnais was applied consistently you'd be in jail.
More red herrings. You might note that Beauharnais specifically stipulated “unless the speaker could show the that the statements were true”. You care to dispute the fact that there is massive amounts of hate printed in the Quran?
Kirbmarc wrote:Do you see the Germans apply their hate speech laws to the Quran? Have you asked yourself why they don't? (Hint: it may have something to do with freedom of religion).

The German law is terrible. Again, if you wrote what you wrote in this forum in Germany you could be arrested.
Maybe they don’t apply it for the same misguided if not suicidal reasons as those that motivates the German government to turn a blind eye to the many depredations such as Cologne? And, once again, freedom of religion is not an absolute – a point you rather pointedly refuse to consider. One might wonder why that might be.

In any case, it seems that German law is a damn fine idea, and it looks like a bit of an ipse dixit to suggest that I could be arrested there for saying what I’ve said. While I don’t know the scope and content on the German law on defamation, it seems that, “to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false”. How is it false to assert the Quran contains massive amounts of egregious and unjustified hatred, and constitutes “a cult of death, a political program from hegemony”? And that a substantial majority of all Muslims revere it?
Kirbmarc wrote:The thing about condoning or supporting immigration of Muslims is that like it or not immigration of Muslims has been a fact for years.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? That slavery was “a fact for years” in the US, and continues to be so in many other areas – including many Muslim countries, means that we shouldn’t speak out against it and endeavor to put an end to such abominations?
Kirbmarc wrote:So what is the right choice?

As far as I can tell (and I'm aware that what I'm saying has its limits) the solution isn't the prevent immigration but to carefully control it. ….

In short immigrants and refugees need to understand that they're guests. They're welcome when they have a job, try to learn the language of the land, respect the laws and principles of the land and are open to the idea of control of fundings and the messages they spread. Otherwise they've outstayed their welcome. ….
Good question, and many of the suggestions may well have some merit. However, as I continue to point out, until “we” face the elephant in the living room – the fact that, as Michael Nugent put it, Islam “is an integrated religious, political and judicial ideology of social governance imposed by force”, and one which is subscribed to by most Muslims – I think all you’re doing is putting bandaids on an amputated leg, just treating the peripheral symptoms, not understanding the root cause.
Kirbmarc wrote:Also Islam apologists (Reza Aslan and others) should be challenged, criticized, and mocked with no limits of "religious defamation" (see why it's important NOT to have "religious defamation" laws, Steers? The Muslim apologists, among others, are sure as hell going to exploit them). ….

I think that hate speech laws in general are too vague, too prone to abuse (including abuse from Muslim apologists who would like to put people like you in jail) and too confusing to be of any help. ….

"Group libel", by its nature, isn't a precise definition. Is saying "Muslims are terrorists" "group libel"? What about "Islam is a hate group"? If not, why not? (You've supported the second sentence - written by Scented Nectar – here). ….
While I certainly agree with you about Aslan and his ilk, I think your understanding of defamation is rather flawed if not flagrantly biased. It is a statement of fact that, as indicated earlier, the Quran says, among many other equally odious claims, that "Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, 'If a black man comes to you his heart is more gross than a donkey's." But it is not a fact that that is true of all black men and which therefore constitutes some rather ugly and odious racism. There’s an asymmetry there that you seem rather reluctant to face.

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10099
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#36

Post by Kirbmarc » Sat Mar 05, 2016 2:28 pm

Steersman wrote:A “terrible law” because of the vagueness of “good motives and justifiable ends”, or because principle behind it is invalid? There is a difference between a principle and its implementation, you know; a little disingenuous, or a case of throwing a boat-load of red-herrings on the field, to conflate the two.
Because of both reasons.

I don't believe that groups should enjoy the same protections of individuals with regards to libel: as I've written later statements about individuals cause precise and quantifiable harm, statements about groups don't. Religious groups also don't have a common reputation to defend, unless you believe in identity politics, i.e. the idea that some monolithic "identity" represents all people who happen to share an opinion.

I also believe that the reference to "good motives and justifiable ends" is incredibly vague and prone to abuse.

Beuharnais is an awful law and there's a reason why it's been superseded by later decisions.
Progress; ever onward and upward
This isn't "progress". I've agreed with you on this point from the beginning.
The fact of the matter is that many more Muslims take the Quran to be literally true than do Christians about the Bible – some 33% Christians according to Gallup, and some 50% to 75% of American Muslims according to Pew, and I expect the numbers to be substantially higher for recent or prospective Muslim immigrants.
Not everyone who believes in Quran literalism is an Islamist, though. There are different degrees of "literalness". Even among the 33% of Christians who believe in Biblical literalism very few believe in, say, geocentrism (which is supported by the Bible in many passages) or in the justification of slavery (which is given many justifications in the Old and New Testament).

Likewise ot all Muslim literalists accept the worst parts of the Quran, or even have read the entire Quran and Hadiths. As I wrote most religious people are incredibly ignorant about their religion. I bet that if you took many statements from the Quran and the Hadiths (which aren't seen as the literal words of "gawd") and asked some Muslims to tell you which is is which they'd probably fail that test badly.

To believe that the Quran is the literal word of god doesn't mean that one automatically approves of everything written in it.
You might note that Beauharnais specifically stipulated “unless the speaker could show the that the statements were true”. You care to dispute the fact that there is massive amounts of hate printed in the Quran?
This a red herring. You didn't just write that the Quran is hateful: you've written repeatedly that Islam deserves to be banned and that many if not most Muslims should be expelled. These aren't statement of fact but statements of value. They can't scrutinized for accuracy (no statement of value can: "murderers should be shot" isn't true or false), but for intent.

Good luck proving that advocating for the violation of the civil rights of a religious group (something patently unconstitutional) is a "good motive and/or a justifiable end”.

Face it, Steers, if Beauharnais was a law you'd be convicted.
freedom of religion is not an absolute – a point you rather pointedly refuse to consider. One might wonder why that might be.
Easy. Because I'm secret Communist Muslim, Mr. McCarthy Steersman.

Freedom of religion isn't an "absolute" but its limits are clearly defined by the principles of liberal secular democracy, which don't include "hateful ideas should be banned". Saying "this religious book is hateful, therefore the freedom of religion of the group which worships it is suspended" goes against all those principles (as I've shown you before).
In any case, it seems that German law is a damn fine idea, and it looks like a bit of an ipse dixit to suggest that I could be arrested there for saying what I’ve said. While I don’t know the scope and content on the German law on defamation, it seems that, “to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false”. How is it false to assert the Quran contains massive amounts of egregious and unjustified hatred, and constitutes “a cult of death, a political program from hegemony”? And that a substantial majority of all Muslims revere it?
Again, the problem isn't about the truth of your statements of fact. It's about the intent of your statement of value.

If you're willing to there's an easy experiment to perform. Go to Germany, say in public what you have said here in the forums or on Twitter (Ban Islam and Deport Muslims), maybe buy some large placards, and see how long it takes before you're arrested. Then you'll figure out why the German laws are actually pretty terrible.
Good question, and many of the suggestions may well have some merit. However, as I continue to point out, until “we” face the elephant in the living room – the fact that, as Michael Nugent put it, Islam “is an integrated religious, political and judicial ideology of social governance imposed by force”, and one which is subscribed to by most Muslims – I think all you’re doing is putting bandaids on an amputated leg, just treating the peripheral symptoms, not understanding the root cause.
I don't think that Micheal Nugent agrees with your solutions to the Islamist problem, Steers. Why don't you ask him?

After you get a reply (probably negative) you should think about the fact that so many agree with you about the problems of Islam but so few agree with your solutions. Also think about the values of secular liberal democracy, and about how it's useless to fight for them by dealing with Islam if you sacrifice them in the fight.
While I certainly agree with you about Aslan and his ilk, I think your understanding of defamation is rather flawed if not flagrantly biased. It is a statement of fact that, as indicated earlier, the Quran says, among many other equally odious claims, that "Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, 'If a black man comes to you his heart is more gross than a donkey's." But it is not a fact that that is true of all black men and which therefore constitutes some rather ugly and odious racism. There’s an asymmetry there that you seem rather reluctant to face.
For the third time, this isn't about statements of facts, it's about statements of value. You've supported banning Islam and deporting Muslims. This is considered hate speech and "group libel/group defamation".

If you don't believe me check out this:
A 29-year-old Berlin woman, meanwhile, received five months probation in July after she had posted comments on Facebook about an alleged rape of a German woman by an asylum seeker. “Filth out!” she wrote, arguing that if tougher measures against refugees were not deployed, “more asylum seekers’ homes will burn.”

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#37

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:43 pm

Steersman wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Irony.
freedom of expression.jpg
We have seen the enemy...
Unclear on the concept of limitations thereon. Maybe for some not particularly honourable reasons?
How honorable are yours? How much pain and suffering would you inflict? How much different are you two, really?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#38

Post by Steersman » Sun Mar 06, 2016 11:39 pm

Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:A “terrible law” because of the vagueness of “good motives and justifiable ends”, or because principle behind it is invalid? There is a difference between a principle and its implementation, you know; a little disingenuous, or a case of throwing a boat-load of red-herrings on the field, to conflate the two.
…. I don't believe that groups should enjoy the same protections of individuals with regards to libel: as I've written later statements about individuals cause precise and quantifiable harm, statements about groups don't. Religious groups also don't have a common reputation to defend, unless you believe in identity politics, i.e. the idea that some monolithic "identity" represents all people who happen to share an opinion.
Well, that’s your opinion, your statement of value, your beliefs. From which most of your subsequent argument follows. As the premise is highly suspect, at best, that means so are the subsequent conclusions.
Kirbmarc wrote:…. To believe that the Quran is the literal word of god doesn't mean that one automatically approves of everything written in it.
Pray tell, how much have you read about the Quran? About Islam? Read Warraq’s Why I’m Not a Muslim? Irshad Manji’s The Trouble With Islam Today? Or even Nugent’s post? Particularly this from the latter?
Nugent wrote:And I am going to argue today that Islam disproportionately uses violence, the values of Islam require more violence than do the values of secular liberal democracy.

Because the values and the laws of secular liberal democracy have evolved over the centuries to gradually reflect more nuanced ideas about freedom of conscience, and equality before the law, and individual human rights.

Whereas the values and the Sharia law of Islam are shackled to the Quran and the Hadiths, documents that are up to thirteen centuries old. And it has to make whatever changes it is envisaging be consistent with those texts, that reflect the values of a considerably more violent era.

Also, followers of Islam, unlike followers of secular democracy, must believe that the creator of the universe dictated the book that Islam is based on, and that book simply cannot be wrong.
So-called “moderate” Muslims, to the extent they accept or insist that the Quran was written by Allah or dictated by Gabriel, underwrite and contribute to all of the barbarisms done in the name of Islam.
Kirbmarc wrote:
Good question, and many of the suggestions may well have some merit. However, as I continue to point out, until “we” face the elephant in the living room – the fact that, as Michael Nugent put it, Islam “is an integrated religious, political and judicial ideology of social governance imposed by force”, and one which is subscribed to by most Muslims – I think all you’re doing is putting bandaids on an amputated leg, just treating the peripheral symptoms, not understanding the root cause.
I don't think that Micheal Nugent agrees with your solutions to the Islamist problem, Steers. Why don't you ask him?
Apart from the niggling detail that from my viewpoint at least and that of many others, and based on the previous point – that all who accept that the Quran was written by Allah are essentially Islamists – you might note that I didn’t actually say that Nugent agreed with my proposed solution. All I was doing was quoting him to buttress my argument that Islam is largely a rather barbaric ideology imposed by force, that that fact is the elephant in the room. And, considering the title of his talk and that it was the issue in a lengthy and public debate, I would call that pretty conclusive evidence he feels the same way. But that barbaric ideology is what you wish to open the doors to?
Kirbmarc wrote:For the third time, this isn't about statements of facts, it's about statements of value. You've supported banning Islam and deporting Muslims. This is considered hate speech and "group libel/group defamation".
I would call it basic prudence; an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. And the facts on the table are that Islam is, as Nugent argued, a rather barbaric ideology imposed by force. And if there are questions of value then, as he also argued, then they entail a choice between secular and “more nuanced ideas about freedom of conscience, and equality before the law, and individual human rights”, and “hanging blasphemers, or flogging adulterers, or cutting the hands of thieves”.
Kirbmarc wrote:[If you don't believe me check out this:
A 29-year-old Berlin woman, meanwhile, received five months probation in July after she had posted comments on Facebook about an alleged rape of a German woman by an asylum seeker. “Filth out!” she wrote, arguing that if tougher measures against refugees were not deployed, “more asylum seekers’ homes will burn.”
You are, once again, grabbing at straws, and strewing the field with red herrings. You might note that the “filth out!” was, apparently, a categorical and unevidenced accusation, while the bit about homes burning looks like a rather clear and illegal threat. Rather different kettle of fish from arguing that current law justifies, or new law could justify, banning and deportation.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#39

Post by Steersman » Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:29 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Steersman wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Irony.
freedom of expression.jpg
We have seen the enemy...
Unclear on the concept of limitations thereon. Maybe for some not particularly honourable reasons?
How honorable are yours? How much pain and suffering would you inflict?
While your heart might be in the right place, I would say you're rather unclear on the concept of an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. And the barbarism and savagery and the "failed states" of much of the Middle East, both currently and historically, should provide adequate evidence of that, at least to those not blinded by their "feelz". While one can sympathize with the many consequential humanitarian disasters, that Muslims have, in general, seriously fucked-up their own countries is no justification at all for allowing them to do the same thing to ours.

Apropos of which, you might note the following from a recent post by Jerry Coyne:
Maajid Nawaz discovers that “moderate” UK Muslims aren’t that moderate

In a new piece at the Daily Beast, moderate Muslim Maajid Nawaz has sorrows. Why? Because members of his very own branch of Islam, the Barelwi sect of Pakistani Sufi Islam, are not behaving moderately.

The backstory is this: a Christian woman in Pakistan, Asia Bibi, was sentenced to death for blasphemy, apparently a charge cooked up by local Muslims who could not forgive her for drinking from the cup they used. (She’s still in jail.)

Then, a “flamboyant secular Muslim,” Salmaan Taseer, governor of Punjab province, defended Asia Bibi in public and lobbied for a lightening of Pakistan’s odious laws against blasphemy. That itself was considered blasphemy, and so, in January, 2011 Taseer was gunned down iwith an AK47 by his bodyguard, Mumtaz Quadri. Predictably, thousands of Pakistanis considered Quadri to have done a heroic thing, and protested in his favor. Nevertheless, he was arrested and hanged for murder on February 29 of this year.

What bothers Maajid most, though, is the reaction of his fellow British Muslims, including those of his own sect, to Quadri’s “martrydom”. And here I’ll quote Nawaz himself ....
And you wonder why many call for the banning Islam, and why I argue for, and will continue to argue for, the deportation of all those who in any way support that barbarous horse shit? Fuck 'em; fuck 'em all - at least all who won't piss on the Quran, figuratively or literally.
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:How much different are you two, really?
Which two? Me and that Muslim thug saying "freedom of expression - go to hell"? You seem to have a remarkable difficulty with nuance, and with being able to differentiate between different contexts. There IS a difference, you know, between the truth and a lie even though both are covered under "freedom of expression". You're "free" to speak the latter but the penalties for doing so are, or should be, rather severe.

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#40

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:00 pm

Steersman wrote: While your heart might be in the right place, I would say you're rather unclear on the concept of an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. And the barbarism and savagery and the "failed states" of much of the Middle East, both currently and historically, should provide adequate evidence of that, at least to those not blinded by their "feelz". While one can sympathize with the many consequential humanitarian disasters, that Muslims have, in general, seriously fucked-up their own countries is no justification at all for allowing them to do the same thing to ours.

Snip, already read. Well acquainted with Islam, thanks. I've been to Islamic countries, more than once.
And you wonder why many call for the banning Islam, and why I argue for, and will continue to argue for, the deportation of all those who in any way support that barbarous horse shit? Fuck 'em; fuck 'em all - at least all who won't piss on the Quran, figuratively or literally.
Nothing to do with feelz. Banning all Muslims would is impossible. Even if you managed to get the laws enacted, requiring a change of Constitution in both the United States and Canada, all you would do is get rid of those that were unwilling to lie about being Islamic. Not sure if you're aware, but many terrorists are not truthful about their intentions. Weird, huh?

Second, you'd incur the wrath of the United Nations, every other country on Earth, and especially Muslim countries. Including our immoderate allies. Which would be cool, but our economy would collapse without their oil. Doing something as radical as banning their faith in our countries, would, hypocritically enough, send them over the edge. Despite the fact most other faiths are pretty much effectively banned in their countries, they still expect us to remain friendly to theirs.

Now, this is infuriating, but so is much of life if you let it get to you. C'est la Vie.

Third, you would drive a good many of these former citizens to terrorism. You just threw them out of a country. They had committed no crime other than some silly beliefs. You deprived them of their possessions, their livelihood and sent them...? Where exactly? You are none too clear on this. What country or countries would accept several million refugees? They ain't finding homes for the Syrian and Afgan folk. Where do you plan on dumping these people? Do you honestly think it wouldn't lead to war if we just ship them somewhere? Ever been in a war?

Or is your plan a more "final solution" one? Because honestly, you need to be clear about where you plan on sending these people. If you mean death camps, say death camps.

Okay, now you've exiled them. Somewhere. They are living in a shithole, they have nothing left to live for, so blowing themselves up for Allah and sticking it to the bastards that did this to them now seems like a really good idea. Why not? You've deprived them of due process, acted tyrannically and messed up their lives. What do they have to lose? And they know our countries, most of them speak the language fluently, ones that grew up here without accent. All aching for revenge. Have you ever noticed a correlation between how much fuckery we engage in in the Middle East, and how much terrorism ensues? Correlation not being causation, but when terrorists explicitly state that they are blowing themselves up for Western fuckery, it should give one pause.

All this assuming you've managed to get this law off the ground. You have zero support for this process. Other religions are going to realize the dangerous precedent that would be made for simply holding savage, stupid beliefs. Even in totalitarian Russia they can't pull this off. Even in China, this has failed. Ask Israel how good this idea of yours is.

You might notice the company you're keeping in your #BanIslam hashtag. Primarily Christian nutters, semi-literate hillbillys and the tinfoil hat brigade. Seriously, find me one account on that hashtag that you'd be proud to call your friend and ally. Then think about why even those that agree Islam is terrible would never, ever endorse your idea.

Now, you might think that you're a bold trendsetter, willing to speak truth to power. The truth is that you're using a bumper-sticker mentality for a very nuanced, tough problem. It involves the law (constitutions, due process, too many others to mention) psychology, logistics and strategy. Your proposed solution would make the problem much greater, lead to greater terrorism.

I do advocate limiting immigration, making Sharia law illegal and mandatory public schools. Unlike some of our more broad-minded pitizens, I'm all about profiling the fuck out of Muslims here. You get rid of problem Islam by making it unattractive. You offer education and exemplify Western values. You don't throw them out the window because you have a scary feel. “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin.

Now for a brief diversion in feels. Because I've known and worked with some Muslims. Most of them were pretty much like Christians. Didn't rock the boat, didn't seem to take their beliefs too seriously. Some of them are pretty good people. These are men, women and children that you would be exiling or killing. And exile might amount to the same thing, with a assload of suffering in between. And I look at this, and I try to point it out to you. That none of these people have committed a crime, and the overwhelming majority never will. You are condemning innocent people. You never once address this. So I wonder about you, I truly do. If you don't address a single other thing I've written, address this. Tell me how any empathetic being could do this to innocent people.

Steersman wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:How much different are you two, really?
Which two? Me and that Muslim thug saying "freedom of expression - go to hell"? You seem to have a remarkable difficulty with nuance, and with being able to differentiate between different contexts. There IS a difference, you know, between the truth and a lie even though both are covered under "freedom of expression". You're "free" to speak the latter but the penalties for doing so are, or should be, rather severe.
I have a problem with nuance? Oh, how I wish you understood irony. I can only imagine the difference it would make in your life.

Your problem is that Islam is incompatible with Western values. There is a bunch of savagery involved. They will break our laws.

Your views are incompatible with Western values. You advocate a brutal exile. You are breaking the law of your land concerning hate speech. You advocate overturning due process, freedom of religion, all sorts of rights. Freedom of speech.

So how different are you two? I see two bumper-sticker slogan mentalities, flip sides of the same coin.

Where do you send these people, Steersman? Why do they deserve to have their rights stripped away when so very many people believe in savage nonsense besides them? Christians, Jews, Scientologists, feminists, Marxists and gun nuts, to mention a few. You still haven't mentioned why the Muslims get special treatment. Do illuminate.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#41

Post by Steersman » Tue Mar 08, 2016 6:18 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Steersman wrote: While your heart might be in the right place, I would say you're rather unclear on the concept of an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. And the barbarism and savagery and the "failed states" of much of the Middle East, both currently and historically, should provide adequate evidence of that, at least to those not blinded by their "feelz". While one can sympathize with the many consequential humanitarian disasters, that Muslims have, in general, seriously fucked-up their own countries is no justification at all for allowing them to do the same thing to ours.
...
And you wonder why many call for the banning Islam, and why I argue for, and will continue to argue for, the deportation of all those who in any way support that barbarous horse shit? Fuck 'em; fuck 'em all - at least all who won't piss on the Quran, figuratively or literally.
Nothing to do with feelz. Banning all Muslims would is impossible.
Not at all impossible as the case with Angola suggests:
[youtube]wO9m6OstwNo[/youtube]

And all without incurring the wrath of the UN or the whackos in Saudia Arabia and Iran and Pakistan. So where there's a will there's a way.
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:....

Second, you'd incur the wrath of the United Nations, every other country on Earth, and especially Muslim countries. Including our immoderate allies. Which would be cool, but our economy would collapse without their oil. Doing something as radical as banning their faith in our countries, would, hypocritically enough, send them over the edge. ...

Third, you would drive a good many of these former citizens to terrorism. ....

.... What do they have to lose? And they know our countries, most of them speak the language fluently, ones that grew up here without accent. All aching for revenge. Have you ever noticed a correlation between how much fuckery we engage in in the Middle East, and how much terrorism ensues? Correlation not being causation, but when terrorists explicitly state that they are blowing themselves up for Western fuckery, it should give one pause. ....
Looks like all you're doing is underlining Nugent's argument that Islam is "an integrated religious, political and judicial ideology of social governance imposed by force", and rewritten it in flashing red letters and size 28 font. You should realize that appeasement tends to be remarkably short sighted. But if Muslims aren't prepared to accept the laws of the land then the consequences are on their heads, not ours.
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Or is your plan a more "final solution" one? Because honestly, you need to be clear about where you plan on sending these people. If you mean death camps, say death camps.
Don’t be fucking ridiculous. Or go hog-wild in creating strawmen and littering the field with boat-loads of red herrings. You might note that the US itself deported some 3 million Mexicans in 1930 and 1954, all without turning the process into another holocaust. Looks like you're grabbing at straws, like you have some highly questionable and unjustified biases.
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:You might notice the company you're keeping in your #BanIslam hashtag. Primarily Christian nutters, semi-literate hillbillys and the tinfoil hat brigade. Seriously, find me one account on that hashtag that you'd be proud to call your friend and ally. Then think about why even those that agree Islam is terrible would never, ever endorse your idea.
Certainly some of them are "nutters" - but one can probably say the same about just about any group you can imagine - tiddlywinkers, gamers, knitting circles, etc., etc., etc. Rather disingenuous at best to insist that all so qualify.
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Now, you might think that you're a bold trendsetter, willing to speak truth to power. The truth is that you're using a bumper-sticker mentality for a very nuanced, tough problem. It involves the law (constitutions, due process, too many others to mention) psychology, logistics and strategy. Your proposed solution would make the problem much greater, lead to greater terrorism.

I do advocate limiting immigration, making Sharia law illegal and mandatory public schools. Unlike some of our more broad-minded pitizens, I'm all about profiling the fuck out of Muslims here. You get rid of problem Islam by making it unattractive. You offer education and exemplify Western values. You don't throw them out the window because you have a scary feel. “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin.
Yes, I will readily agree that it is "a very nuanced, tough problem", and I'm glad to see you arguing for "making Sharia law illegal and mandatory public schools". However, empty platitudes aren't going to cut the mustard. While I'm happy to see that, apparently and from recollection, Texas at least has voted to ban Sharia law, one might suggest those suggestions of yours are virtually tantamount to banning Islam - freedom of religion and all that. And unless Muslims are prepared to accept that - which I rather doubt - then the only "Plan B" available is outright banning and/or putting an end to Muslim immigration.
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Now for a brief diversion in feels. Because I've known and worked with some Muslims. Most of them were pretty much like Christians. Didn't rock the boat, didn't seem to take their beliefs too seriously. ....

So I wonder about you, I truly do. If you don't address a single other thing I've written, address this. Tell me how any empathetic being could do this to innocent people.
Sure - that was largely Nugent's point: as individuals, generally no better or no worse than Christians or atheists. However, when those same individuals underwrite or condone barbaric practices - as Nawaz's recent article suggests, as does Rizvi's tweet I quoted earlier - then one might reasonably raise an eyebrow or two at "innocent people". You may wish to review the Wikipedia article on collective responsibilty - not a totally unreasonable argument despite the self-serving protestations of people like Namazie.
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:.....

Your problem is that Islam is incompatible with Western values. There is a bunch of savagery involved. They will break our laws.
Well, I'm glad that you've at least understood the crux or motivations of my argument.
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Your views are incompatible with Western values. You advocate a brutal exile. You are breaking the law of your land concerning hate speech. You advocate overturning due process, freedom of religion, all sorts of rights. Freedom of speech. ....
In your opinion. And I've shown you that there are substantial limitations on those rights and freedoms. What you, and others, seem to be advocating is little better than the worst of anarchy.
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Where do you send these people, Steersman? Why do they deserve to have their rights stripped away when so very many people believe in savage nonsense besides them? Christians, Jews, Scientologists, feminists, Marxists and gun nuts, to mention a few. You still haven't mentioned why the Muslims get special treatment. Do illuminate.
You might note again that I've argued that all they have to do to stay or to enter is to repudiate Islam and accept that it is a proscribed set of beliefs and behaviours; their choices; their acceptance of the consequences.

As for "special treatment", you might note that Islam has been and is at the heart of large amounts and numbers of untold grief, barbarisms, and humanitarian disasters over the last 50 years - if not substantially longer. In notable contradistinction to the relative dearth of such by "Christians, Jews, Scientologists, feminists, Marxists, and gun nuts" - to mention a few.

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#42

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Tue Mar 08, 2016 9:46 pm

Where do you send them, Steersman?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#43

Post by Steersman » Wed Mar 09, 2016 11:25 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Where do you send them, Steersman?
Maybe a reasonable question.

However, maybe it will be sufficient, at least as a start, to ban Islam and various modes of Islamic head coverings and actions, raze some mosques, and deport the more odious and egregious mullahs and their thuggish henchmen. As Angola, China, and France have already done. All without causing anything like the, grief, deaths, and humanitarian disasters that Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan have already caused.

But for instance, I notice that Angola banned Islam and razed some mosques some 3 years ago, all apparently without causing a mass exodus of "the half a million Muslims in the country". Or massive reprisals from the dickheads in SaudiBarbaria. And then there's this video about France banning all Muslims' political protests. Time to read the fucking Riot Act to Muslims in general, and Angola, France, and China look like they're leading the way.

So if "we" are prepared to draw a line in the sand - as seems to be increasingly necessary - there might well be a more manageable number to deal with. And if push comes to shove then I expect the West is still able to wield a big enough stick to force the repatriation of many Muslims to various Islamic "states" - the US and company managed to do something similar with Iran over nuclear weapons so not inconceivable to use the same process for unwelcome "guests".

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6541
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Islam and Islamists

#44

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:49 pm

So when actually asked what to do when you deport the Muslims, you than change the goal all the while keeping the same mantra on Twitter. Seems more than a bit dishonest. Perhaps you need to stop questioning others assumptions and seriously question your own.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#45

Post by Steersman » Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:05 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:So when actually asked what to do when you deport the Muslims, you than change the goal all the while keeping the same mantra on Twitter. Seems more than a bit dishonest.
Not really. What do you expect in a 140 characters?

If you were being honest yourself then you'd accept that I've repeatedly qualified my tweets with "at least any who won't piss on the Quran" or words to that effect. If Muslims facing threatened deportation wish to repudiate Islam, figuratively or literally, and accept that their Mullahs will be deported, that their right to Sharia law is revoked, that their madrasas will be closed, and that their mosques will be razed to the ground - as happened, more or less, in Angola - then I would be willing to accept them as citizens in Western countries. But if not? Then fuck 'em, as harsh as that may sound - ounce of prevention and all that.

But you seem unwilling or unable to accept that society generally has any number of more or less reasonable laws that it expects people to follow, and if they don't then society has the right if not the obligation to act accordingly. Which I think is more or less analogous to the situations that Muslims should be confronted with: abandon your religion, and all its odious trappings, or depart forthwith. As cases in point, you might take a look at this tweet from Ed Suominem - wrote a great article on Islamophobia that Jerry Coyne commended - and the Facebook page he links to:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRO_FrgWgAA70b6.jpg
"All too representative", indeed; criminal that so many wish to turn a blind eye to that fact.
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Perhaps you need to stop questioning others assumptions and seriously question your own.
Always a good policy. But the nature of assumptions is that they tend to be rather hard to identify - sort of like our own visual blind spots. Hence the necessity for having other people point them out - or at least as they see them. But I don't see that many people, if any, have identified any of mine and given any credible proof that they are without merit or validity.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#46

Post by Steersman » Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:14 pm

Another one - of many - to add to the files:

Probably quoted this before from Ayaan Hirsi Ali but seems apropos:
In a 2007 interview in the London Evening Standard, Hirsi Ali characterised Islam as "the new fascism":

"Just like Nazism started with Hitler's vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate — a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism." In this interview, she said, "Violence is inherent in Islam – it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder."

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#47

Post by Steersman » Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:23 pm

Since it seems like it might be worthwhile, copying and pasting (the horror!) a comment by Phil and my response to it in the main thread; I've also edited it slightly to provide numbered links (1-7), plus a few topical extras, and a list of them at the bottom for easy reference:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Steers said:
With literally hundred's of thousand of refugees, a large percentage of whom are nut cases
You really need to provide some reliable sources on this. Multiple, numbered and linked if possible. Because right now, you are sinking deeper and deeper in my already frail esteem.
You can't have been paying very much attention to current events, or to any of the more detailed commentary and analysis.

But for starters, you might check out the Pew Forum Survey (1) which notes (pg 170, Q.38) that some 50% of American Muslims think the Quran is the "Word of God, taken literally word for word" whereas only 23% of Catholics do, and only 10% of Jews. And those are American Muslims, presumably the more rational (?) and "moderate" ones, particularly in comparison to those coming from bastions of the enlightenment like SaudiBarbaria and Afghanistan - and Syria.

And then, relative to that rather problematic question of literalism and to underline it, you might take a gander at this Facebook page by, apparently, an American ex-Muslim, Simi Rahman (2), that Ali Rizvi had linked to earlier. A salient, cogent, and damning quote:
Rahman wrote:I went deep into the Midwest, wore a hijab for a year and lived there for 8 years. In that time, I attended ISNA gatherings, met w educated, professional people like myself who were also asking the same questions. They were looking to their faith for answers. And sure, there were efforts made to modernize Islam, but they were only superficial. We couldn't do it. We couldn't do it because there is a logical dilemma at the core of Islam. And that is, that the Quran is the last word of God, that it is perfect and unchangeable. And to even suggest such a thing is blasphemy and apostasy.
"logical dilemma at the core of Islam", indeed; you may wish to give some serious thought to the implications and consequences of that.

And then there's this from another ex-Muslim (apparently), a Syrian-American woman (one assumes ...) doctor, Wafa Sultan (3), who had this to say (apparently) in another blog (4):
Sultan wrote:I came to the absolute conviction that it is impossible…impossible…for any human being to read the biography of Mohammed and believe in it, and then emerge a psychologically and mentally healthy person.
Which is also apparently found here in a YouTube video - not surprisingly titled "Islam & Mental Illness" (5).

And then, a little closer to home, a post from Jerry Coyne (6) on how "Maajid Nawaz discovers that 'moderate' UK Muslims aren’t that moderate"; he's commenting on case in Pakistan in which the government hung some dickhead Muslim, Mumtaz Quadri, for executing the "governor of Punjab province, [who] defended Asia Bibi in public and lobbied for a lightening of Pakistan’s odious laws against blasphemy". Coyne's lengthy quote of Nawaz (in part):
Nawaz wrote:Even in the U.K., the reaction has been difficult to comprehend.

Previously, a quarter of my fellow British Muslims have expressed sympathy with the terrorists who attacked the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris. And now, certain Muslim religious and community “leaders,” who position themselves as anti-ISIS and “mainstream,” have come out publicly praising Qadri as a hero.

One of Europe’s largest mosques, the Barelwi Sufi-managed Ghamkol Sharif in Birmingham, U.K., held a wake “in honor of the lover of the Prophet, Warrior Mumtaz Qadri, the martyr.”

Another Barelwi Imam, Muhammed Asim Hussain, whose verified Facebook page has been liked nearly 137,000 times, posted his position openly:

“A dark day in the history of Pakistan; the day Ghazi [warrior] Mumtaz was wrongfully executed and martyred in the way of Allah, when he did what he did in honor of the Prophet.” ....
Slow learner, that boy; always talking, never listening.

And then, rounding out what is little more than the tip of an odious and mephitic and barbaric iceberg, Bill banning child marriage fails in Pakistan after it’s deemed ‘un-Islamic’ (7)

Etc., etc., et-fucking-cetera. "Nut cases" and psychotics; close the borders to Muslims in general, and deport the fucking lot of them already here - at least all who won't piss on the Quran and the Prophet, figuratively or literally, bonus points for the latter.

-----------------------
Links:
1) Pew Forum Survey;
2) Simi Rahman ;
3) Wafa Sultan;
4) The Muslim Issue;
5) Islam and Mental Illness;
6) Maajid Nawaz discovers that 'moderate' UK Muslims aren’t that moderate;
7) Bill banning child marriage fails in Pakistan after it’s deemed ‘un-Islamic’;
8) 10 years ago, this undercover reporter warned of terror hotbed in Brussels;
9) Geert Wilders For Breitbart: ‘We Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet’;
10) Glasgow mosque leader praises extremist killer;
11) Islamicide: How the Mullah Mafia Is Destroying Pakistan;
12) Saudi Arabia, an ISIS That Has Made It;
13) How the Saudis Churn Out ‘Jihad Inc.’;

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#48

Post by Steersman » Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:29 pm

Seems there's some increasing interest in at least banning Islam in some European countries, notably Italy and Austria:
Italian newspaper speaks out: Ban and expel Islam!

Let's throw Islam out of our countries, writes the Italian newspaper Il Giornale in an editorial in response to the carnage in Brussels.

"Islam and its God is incompatible with our civilization, our childrens' blood is on its hands and it is insatiable. That's the problem. The rest is just chit-chat." ....
And:
Austrian newspaper: It's time to discuss whether Islam should be banned in Europe

A statement by Wolfgang Fellner in the daily Austrian newspaper "Österreich" has created outrage among local Muslims.

In a recent edition the journalist stated: "Now we must permit discussions about whether or not Islam as such should be banned in Europe."

According to the Islamic faith community in Austria, Fellner is thus attacking "the central human right of religious freedom," and that Fellner's statement "should not be passed in silence," said spokeswoman of the Islamic Community in Austria (IGGiÖ), Carla Amina Baghajati, in a press release. ....
Seems that "Carla" is unclear on the concept that religion is not the proverbial get-out-of-jail-free card.

But not sure how reliable the "concentrator" [SPESIA] is, although the sources they quote seem more or less on the up-and-up. And there's another blog - Gates of Vienna - that discusses, translates, and quotes in some detail the Austrian story, notably:
Editor of Österreich: Ban Islam!

Wolfgang Fellner, the Viennese editor of the daily paper Österreich (Austria), has penned a very readable commentary on the terrorism in Brussels. He suggests taking three lessons from the “Super-GAU for our security”. Fellner: …The third point in the battle against terrorism is the most problematic: The discussion must be allowed of whether Islam per se should be banned in Europe. With all due respect for the freedom of religion and the many peaceful, sympathetic adherents of Islam here in Austria. The lines between peaceful Islam and terrorism in the name of Islam are becoming increasingly more blurred. In our municipal kindergartens. In many mosques. Terror is encouraged, preached and prepared there. This cannot go on.
In-fucking-deed.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#49

Post by jimhabegger » Sat Apr 02, 2016 8:12 am

Okay, I see. Some of the debating about the influence of Islam, is in relation to refugees.

I'm not sure that allowing Muslim refugees into European and North American countries will increase crime and other social problems. I'm not sure it won't. I am sure that I wouldn't agree for that to be the only consideration, in deciding how many refugees to allow.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#50

Post by jimhabegger » Sat Apr 02, 2016 8:13 am

Oops. I meant to post that in the Undead thread, but maybe it's better that I posted it here.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#51

Post by jimhabegger » Sat Apr 02, 2016 8:21 am

Steersman, everything you're saying about the history of Muslim societies, applies equally well to the history atheist societies. Would you propose that we solve the atheist problem the same ways that you're proposing to solve the Muslim one?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#52

Post by jimhabegger » Sat Apr 02, 2016 9:04 am

Steersman, I just skimmed through this thread, and as I understand it, you're saying that the government should ban Islam, refuse admittance to Muslims, and preferably deport some or all of the ones in its jurisdiction, because that will help prevent a lot of violence, social problems and other grief. Am I understanding that right?

One question I have about that is, what are the limits to what you would agree for the government to do, to prevent violence? Can you give me any examples of things you would not agree for the government to do, even if you believed it would help prevent violence?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#53

Post by jimhabegger » Sat Apr 02, 2016 3:35 pm

Steersman, I have some questions.

I see you saying that the government should ban Islam, keep Muslims from entering the country, and deport some or preferably all the ones that are already there, for the purpose of preventing a lot of violence and other grief that might happen, or is sure to happen, otherwise.

Questions:

1. Am I understanding your proposal correctly?

2. Am I missing anything?

3. Can you give me some examples of things you would not agree for the government to do, even if you believed it would help prevent violence?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#54

Post by jimhabegger » Sat Apr 02, 2016 3:42 pm

Steersman, another question I forgot:

Do you think it's wrong for anyone to try to do anything to help reduce prejudices against Muslims, or to help Muslims face up to it, in the parts of the world where it's popular?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#55

Post by jimhabegger » Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:24 pm

Steersman, One Trick Pony thinks we're posting too much in the Undead thread, so I'll be trying to use this thread for my comments and questions to you.

In the Undead thread, you wrote:
Steersman wrote:... what appears to you as prejudice is simply some well-founded apprehensions about the intent and import of Islam.
I've seen both, some that looks to me like well-founded apprehensions about the intent and import of Islam, and some that looks to me like prejudice. I don't remember in what proportion, and the proportion in the larger population might not be the same as in my sample. Mostly what I've seen looks to me like people advancing their careers by appealing to popular prejudices. I can easily believe that those people don't despise Muslims any more than they despise anyone else, including the people whose prejudices they're appealing to.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#56

Post by jimhabegger » Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:37 pm

Maybe this whole thread, or even all of the Slyme Pit, is a parody, and I'm the only one, or one of the few, who aren't in on it.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#57

Post by jimhabegger » Sat Apr 02, 2016 8:53 pm

Steersman wrote:For instance, you might try addressing Brive's argument that Islam refuses to accept that "treating women like shit and killing gays / apostates [are] criminal acts outside the boundaries of civilisation".
I'm not trying to argue with anyone about what they're saying. I'm trying to clarify, for myself, what they're saying.

I have no objection to you or anyone else saying whatever you're trying to say about Islam and/or Muslims, as long as you do it honestly and fairly. What I see you doing doesn't look honest and fair to me, but I could be wrong.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#58

Post by jimhabegger » Sat Apr 02, 2016 8:54 pm

- and responsibly. I forgot responsibly.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#59

Post by Steersman » Sat Apr 02, 2016 9:55 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:For instance, you might try addressing Brive's argument that Islam refuses to accept that "treating women like shit and killing gays / apostates [are] criminal acts outside the boundaries of civilisation".
I'm not trying to argue with anyone about what they're saying. I'm trying to clarify, for myself, what they're saying.

I have no objection to you or anyone else saying whatever you're trying to say about Islam and/or Muslims, as long as you do it honestly and fairly. What I see you doing doesn't look honest and fair to me, but I could be wrong.
Well, you could always trying refuting all of the many articles I've quoted or cited. For starters. If you're not just blowing smoke out of your arse.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#60

Post by jimhabegger » Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:05 pm

Steersman, I said that what I see you doing doesn't look honest, fair and responsible to me, but I might be reading too much into what you're saying and doing. For example I actually did think you were saying that you're proposing to deport anyone who would object to your proposal!

Could you explain why you think it's important for people to know whatever you're trying to say about Islam and/or Muslims?

Post Reply