London murder rate rises higher than NY City

There have been serious arguments made to that effect. I think they're preposterous, since it's hard enough establishing Jesus' existence let alone his sexuality. If we believe Dan Brown, Jesus was hetero and married to Mary Magdelene who is buried by his side at Ross Castle Scotland. After all, He was fully human, as well as possibly divine. All idle speculation. But that's beside the point.

I believe Vice posted his statements from a safe distance on an internet blog. No problem there. He can be as offensive as he wants. If he came here to Oklahoma,--say one of the towns in Little Dixie along the Arkansas border--and said that, he'd probably get a heated reaction. He might even end up squealing like a pig for his "homophobic"remarks, to the tune of dueling banjos, as ironic as that might seem--something to note in his obituary, if anybody ever found the remains and could identify them as human. Lauren is gutsier. She was in your face--taking "Allah Is Gay" directly to the Muslims. In that context, those wuz fightin' words, crafted "to see how religious homophobes of a different stripe would react"--i.e., to start a fight (hence the label "fighting words"). In fact, the language in the leading U.S. case on the subject, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, seems to me to have been much tamer. Chaplinsky said to the town Marshall :"You are a God-damned racketeer" (he disputed the God part) and "a damned Fascist". The Supreme court deemed these "utterances" to have "no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." BTW, the real issue here is blasphemy, not homophobia. People for whom nothing is sacred may find it hard to understand the pain inflicted by remarks like this about things others hold sacred. Nothing wrong with speech that inflicts pain as long as there is some other purpose to it and it has some minimal intellectual content. It is readily apparent that Lauren's purpose was to provoke a violent reaction so that she could use that in pursuit of her real objective--to promote ethno-nationalism and prepare the way for takeovers by Trump-style demagogues.

As for the Muslim hypersensitivity to blasphemy (Lauren was counting on that), I think that's true but beside the point. Different religious congregations react differently to different things. I'd tread lightly around Catholics with remarks about the Virgin Mary. Southern Baptists would be more likely to take offense at remarks about Jesus and his sexuality than the Methodists down the block. In fact, if someone said something like that at my Sunday School class, they'd probably ask him to elaborate in greater detail, maybe invite him to lunch for further discussion, and possibly come back next week for another round--so that he'd soon be asking himself why he didn't keep his damned mouth shut. There's a saying in the law : "you take your victim as you find him." Governments have an interest in keeping the peace, and are justified in taking action to prevent people from deliberately trying to provoke civil disorder. To quote the cliche from the Schenck case, "no one has the right to cry fire in a crowded theater."

 

That's nice. Sounds like more of the "Some of my best friends" arguments heard so often from people defending themselves against charges of racism. Did you repay your hosts' hospitality by sharing Lauren's pamphlet about Allah being gay, or your thoughts about how ridiculous women look in hijabs?



.

 

"Much of the Islamic world'. Really? Source? Not all Muslim countries adopt or enforce such punishments for hadd offenses, and polling suggests attitudes of Muslims toward them vary widely. What is Sharia?
Application of Islamic law by country - Wikipedia

 

Charlie Hebdo was not harassing and STALKING anybody by publishing a newspaper with cartoons offensive to Muslims. The editors didn't take those cartoons to Muslim neighborhoods and stick them in people's faces. That's where the line is to be drawn. If Lauren had simply published her pamphlet, no problem. The problem occurred when she tried to take it to the streets and confront people with it.

 

I find that hard to believe, although the rumor has been making the rounds on the internet thanks to Pam Geller. What does the "law" say? .Or is it just another figment of the conspiracy-minded right's imaginations? No, Canada Is Not About To Make It Illegal To Criticize Islam
.

 

No that's not what I'm saying. I favor skilled immigration and patriotism toward the nation one wishes to relocate to. Not for open borders and weak vetting in immigration for criminals.

But do you support those laws?

If I recall in one of your many gun control threads, you said that comparing guns to knives was a fallible argument. Do you still believe that?

Islam is not a race, but nice try. I also never said the UK was supposed to be purely white. Didn't that "cheddar man" discovery prove otherwise?

There may be a lot we can learn from other cultures through the open exchange of international ideas. But at the same time, many cultures still have their flaws.

Here's what I support:

-Free speech
-Capitalism
-Freedom of the press
-Freedom of association
-Individualism

Here's what Nazis and Socialists seem to agree on:

-anti free speech
-anti capitalism
-anti freedom of the press
-anti freedom of association
-anti individualism, pro collectivism

Yet somehow I'm the bigot....

 

That's Jordan Horner, a ginger jihadi who became an online meme.
He was part of a "Muslim Patrol" that would enforce Sharia Law on the streets of London. It actually happened. Ginger 'Muslim patrol' member Jordan Horner blames internet for his extremism | Daily Mail Online

Lauren and her crew set up a table to hand out these fliers. People approached her, not the other way around. @Balbus thinks this is a form of stalking.

It was my former roommate and some of his African friends who did the ramadan celebration. They brought home the leftovers later. This was 2 years ago, so no I didn't have any of Southern's leaflets, nor do I think having a religious argument would've done anybody any good. These were moderate muslims who loved to drink and get stoned. Plus, the muslim girls who would come and visit never wore hijabs (then again it was in a place where they won't be punished by the law for not wearing the hijab).

 

Those micks in south boston have become soft since the days of forced busing and integration

 

I'm aware that various Sharia countries practice different sets of laws. But lets look at polls compiled and surveyed from American Muslims:

Poll shows high levels of support for sharia law and violence among American Muslims
https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy...uslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/

 

6

So if that is not what you were saying why did you bring it up?

You were talking retrospectively not what you favour going forward it was about who was already here. I mean, you’ve said that you think the people who have migrated to the UK in the last 100 years are more violent than the ‘natives’.

And now you seem to be imply you think they are more likely to be criminals.

[by bold]

When it comes to who you think these people are you have strongly indicate that you associate them as being Muslims

But as already stated doesn’t stacks up - this is the very definition of bigotry – this is all based on your own bias and prejudiced beliefs.

You’ve stated that in your view it is the migrants into the UK that arrived in the past hundred years or so that are the problem, from let’s say from about 70 years ago when the Windrush docked and people started coming to the UK from places like the Indian subcontinent.

 

6

Sorry what the hell are you going on about?

Have you ever looked at the law in England and Wales about this? It’s already illegal to carry a knife in public The maximum penalty for an adult carrying a knife is 4 years in prison and an unlimited fine. You’ll get a prison sentence if you’re convicted of carrying a knife more than once.

LOL what the fuck are you on about?

Really, can you explain what you are trying to say?

 

6

Been homosexual isn’t about race either but there are bigots that hate gays

So what do you mean by ‘nice try’ - you are saying you think Muslims “are more violent than” other people because they are Muslims- that is the very definition of bigotry – it been based on your own bias and prejudiced beliefs.

But you didn’t choose the Mesolithic period you stated that the ‘natives’ of the UK where those that could trace the ancestry back a hundred years or so which just so happens to be before the time of today’s more ethnically mixed population (which grew after WWII).

 

6

WOW you see things so simplistically

For the thousandth time please stop thinking in terms of either or, black and white, good and bad, the real world is not like that, and if you are to actually look for rational and reasonable ideas and solutions you have to engage with the complexity of the real world rather than be blinkered by prejudices and ideology.

Let’s just take one thing for the moment –

Capitalism – Anti-capitalism

But in the real world it’s not like that, there are lots of differing forms and shades of capitalism and multiple economic theories.

And again your assertion that nationalists (like the Nazis) and socialists are always anti-capitalist is incorrect, because again it is too simplistic, because there are many shades of nationalism and multiple forms of socialism.

*

Let us take the most dominant economic theory of the last 30 odd years (at least in the west) this has been neo-liberalism, a free market style capitalist theory that promoted economic globalisation, yet many alt-right and US nationalists seem to be rejecting that economic globalisation in favour of national protectionisnism, while still holding on to other areas of free market thinking. A perverse form of neo-liberalism that favours ‘neo-liberal’ ideas but only within national boundaries and/or only directed a certain groups within those borders

*

Basically it’s about to what extent people think capitalism should be managed from extreme anarcho-capitalists who want little or no management to hard-line communist that want it total control. But extremes are often unstable or unworkable, you could say the middle ground are the Keynesian type economic models that are about allowing markets freedom as long as they work in the interests and for the benefit of society as a whole while trying to ensure business cycles do the least amount of damage.

*

I hope you can see from just this very basic lesson that it’s not as simple as Yes or No.

 

Balbus, if you replace the term being racist with being discriminatory (against a certain religion, cultures, societal backgrounds) maybe this discussion will move forward a little.
Most discriminating people will forever refute the accusement of being racist, often because they are sincerely convinced they're not. Then it becomes a rhetoric game we see so often on this site that is quite pointless. But its harder to rhetorically refute the OP, as well as the person this thread was about and he admires, are discriminating people because of their national/societal/cultural background.

 

Well, sounds like another disturbed nutjob in the world. Why should anybody be concerned about what he says, unless his "patrol" starts trying to enforce his rules, in which case it should be a matter for the police.

 

Well, when you can project it on a lot of other people you want to keep out... one can at least find it useful to act concerned

 

She was out in public with them in a place where Muslims were likely to be. thereby creating the potential for a violent reaction. British authorities decided this posed a danger to the peace and public order. I think that's a reasonable judgment. As the U.S. Supreme Court said in Chaplinsky these are "insulting, or 'fighting' words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

 

Well, thanks for acknowledging that there are moderate Muslims who don't follow Sharia..

 

He does have a jaded perspective on the hijab though.

 

Your "poll" was done by the Center for Security Policy, which is in the same business as Lauren and Milo--i.e., putting out anti-Muslim propaganda. The organization is criticized by the Southern Poverty Law Ceter and the Anti-Defamation League for propagating Islamaphobia and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories. If that's where you're getting your info, no wonder you have a jaundiced view of Islam.

I found it particularly fascinating to read through all the gobbledygook on the sampling methodology, culminating in the announcement that the initial description of the results had been modified to make clear it wasn't representative of all Muslims but only those sampled. In other words, it wasn't a scientific sample, but just the opinions of 600 Muslims surveyed. This was a relatively small sample from an "opt-in panel" "recruited from multiple sources using a dynamic sampling platform for verification, real time profiling, and random selection based on project requirements". And due to the difficulty of reaching Muslim Americans over the phone an "online sample frame was selected". I'm not sure what the hell all that means, but I think the bottom line is that there was enough opportunity for self-selection by respondents that the survey is worthless as a basis for generalizing about American Muslims. The Center admitted this, in its obscurantist manner.

And the questions. "A majority (51 percent) of Muslims surveyed said they "should have the choice of being governed according to shariah." Suppose you ask Orthodox Jews whether they should have the choice of being governed by the mitzvahs. What would their response be? (Note: the question doesn't say "instead of U.S. law.) Probably at least half would say "yes". As for the questions about the legitimacy of violence against those who insult the prophet Muhammad, the Qur'an, or the Islamic faith" (30% or 180 respondents) and " against Americans here in the United States.. as part of the global jihad" (25%, or 150 respondents) those are more disturbing. If we can assume the results were reported correctly (which I don't),we seem to have some potentially dangerous people on our hands--fortunately a relatively small number that we know of. (Surprise, surprise!) The good news is that a large majority (70% & 75%, respectivley) of the sample does not agree with these statements. Too bad we can't probe further and ask the minority of respondents what they meant by their answers--e.g., what kind of violence? What kind of jihad? Under what circumstances?