London murder rate rises higher than NY City

Attack the messenger again as always. Figures. But that's OK, how about we use some sources more toward your views. So lets look away from America and over to the UK with some more progressive sources like the Guardian.

-1001 out of 1001 Muslims polled in the UK believe homosexuality is unacceptable
-50% of British Muslims surveyed think homosexuality should be outlawed
-23% of British Muslims surveyed want Sharia Law
-39% of that same group believe that a woman should ALWAYS obey her husband
-33% of them believed a man should be allowed more than one wife
-31% of British Muslims believe the 7/7 bombings were justified.


Half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, poll finds
Muslims in Britain have zero tolerance of homosexuality, says poll
Muslim ghettos in the UK: Warning that a nation within a nation is developing that doesn't share British values

 

I said "nice try" because you said this:

Seems to be implications that my deep criticism of islam is racially driven

And again I have to reiterate that Islam is not a race. It never was, it never will be. But I can see why people frequently mistake it for one. They assume people of West Asian ethnicity all muslim. Not only is this not true, but this is arguably racist to make blanket assumptions of such people of this ethnicity.

My interpretation of the definition of native isn't solely based off of British history; I was also basing it off of the history of North and South American nations too. Sure, those lands had a native population for eons. But those lands were much much different prior to the conquest from Europe and even Asia. The US for example, is a much younger country. This is a country consisting of people descended from the colonists, the natives american "indians", the black slaves, Asian migrant workers during the wild west gold rush, Ellis Island immigrants, and more. These people have been here for generations. These people are native to the US in terms of nationality and national identity, maybe you can say they might be at least 3rd or 4th generation citizens. I'm trying to explain this without conflating and confusing it with actual true Native Americans whose ancestry predate the country by thousands of years.

 

Thank you. I agree completely.

I have no prejudices or discriminatory thoughts toward any race of people. I don't think any one race is superior or inferior to another. Regarding cultures, I feel there are certain ones that are better than others, and I believe that western culture is the best in the world. But that doesn't mean I think all people who come from non-western cultures are inferior to westerners. There's still a lot we can learn from other cultures as we progress humanity forward. At the same time, I believe we need to leave certain cultural norms that are holding humanity down. We must leave those behind in history.

Cultural relativism is bullshit.

There is a lot that is wrong with islamic culture. I've known people who've spent time in Libya under Ghaddafi. They've told me that a woman walking by herself in the streets unaccompanied by a man, was seen as a street whore who was asking for it. This is a cultural belief that is fueled by religious fundamentalism. Some cultures are better than others.

Lets be fair though, it's not just Islam that has it's cultural problems. There's a problem with Israel Jewish culture as well - forced circumcision of baby boys (sometimes performed orally by the rabbi Why Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Babies Keep Getting Herpes)

In east Asia, they are still harvesting tiger penises for an afrodisac and a form of Chinese medicine to combat erectile dysfunction. Even though none of this has been scientifically proven to work. At least one tiger is killed a day for this barbaric ritual. Killing endangered species is bad. I don't care if it's a part of someone's culture. Trade In Tiger Parts

Sure, Western culture still has some flaws, but it has been the best in terms of economic uprising, advancment in technology, medicine, longevity, the sciences, and the arts. Western culture was the first to make slavery illegal. Yet there are still parts of the world where slavery is practiced legally.

The west is also the most tolerant place toward other cultures. If western culture is so awful, how come so many people from other cultures want to come here?

 

Fair enough, I won't argue that capitalism and socialism are black and white subject matters.

But I will say that supporting freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press ARE black and white issues; you either support everyone to have these freedoms, or you don't.

Censorship of speech and unpopular ideas are traits Nazis and Socialists alike seem to have in common

 

Is it a form of Stalking though?

If I set up a booth where I hand out leaflets saying "Socialism is Cancer to our Society," and you get offended by it. Am I stalking you the same way Balbus' character BOB is stalking and harassing my wife?

Also, are you saying that I have no right to hand out such leaflets in a place largely inhabited by socialists like San Francisco? Those must be fighting words, right?

 

It's a yes or no question.

Do you support these anti-knife laws, or not?

 

We should be concerned because he, like many other young impressionable muslims, can be propagated and brainwashed by hate preachers, to become radicalized and behave like a gang member.

There are already gang controlled areas in the US where police won't go to. I'm looking for ways to reduce gang violence, and if the gang violence is inspired by the relgion of Islam, then the religion of Islam could do more to step in and prevent this.

 

There are no end of young, impressionable, deluded guys walking around (don't take that personally), and yes they are recruitable for all kinds of mischief by demagogues--Alt Right, Stormers, Objectivists, Lauren Southern, Milo Yianoppoulos etc. Certainly something to be concerned about. Some may even go around posting notices on poles about rules they want others to follow. In a free society, though, that's the breaks.

Jeez, that's like saying that just cuz I'm a Christian means I have an obligation to step in and do something about the Klan or the Christian Identity movement. As you say, though, many of these kids are similar to gang members, looking for family and identity. I understand some of the ISIS recruits get their Islam from Islam for Dummies and the Complete Idiot's Guide to Islam. Figures.

 

If the messenger is a professional liar, you bet I'll attack him. Your source was notoriously biased and the methodology is a travesty, so why should anyone accept it. Don't you think the credibility of a source and the methods it uses are relevant in deciding whether or not to believe it? Instead of dealing with those facts you attack me. Now for your latest "facts" and sources:

• The Sun article on "Muslim ghettos" : The Sun is a notoriously anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim British tabloid whose columnist Katie Hopkins called migrants "cockroacnes ', "feral humans", and "like the norovirus". Its column of August ,2017, on "The Muslim Problem" (a phrase echoing Nazi propaganda on "the Jewish Problem"), drew condemnation from the UN Commission for Human Rights. So much for that one. If you think this is "more toward my views', you must think I'm a neo-Nazi.
• The Guardian articles are another story. The problem here is not with the articles themselves but your selective use of them. The first one on your list "Half of all Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal" reports findings from a survey for a Channel 4 documentary which indicates that, by and large, British Muslims have a strong sense of belonging & favorable feelings toward Britain. Less than a quarter want Sharia "in some areas" , but a strong majority condemns the extreme expressions of Sharia, like stoning adulteresses. As for homosexuality, these findings may seem more shocking to someone from the Pacific Northwest than to a Bible Belt Okie like me. Homosexuality would be illegal in my state were it not for the Supreme Court, and the state legislature, with strong backing from the electorate, seldom misses an opportunity to try to enact anti-gay legislation. It's the next best thing to putting the Ten Commandments some place on public property, and who cares if it's declared unconstitutional so long as the legislators get credit for passing it. So the typical reaction of us Okies to the article would be: "Wow. Only 50% of Muslims want homosexuality to be outlawed. They sure are librul." Oklahoma May Have Just Set a Record for Most Anti-LGBT Bills Ever in Any State - Towleroad
  
• The article "Muslims in Britain have zero tolerance of homosexuality" reports results from a Gallup poll of three European countries--U.K, France, and Germany. British Muslims were found to be significantly more conservative on the issue than those in the other countries. Thirty-five percent of French Muslims found homosexuality to be acceptable.

 

Seems like the link sets out with a predetermined notion and looks for results to prove it. It's subtly admitted in the link so they can be "fair and balanced". We did not say it was true you the reader assumed it from the data so what does that say about you even though we hoped you would sort of deal.


Poor science 6 but also very common when gathering statistics.

 

I wouldn't call what you described a form of stalking, but if the place where you set up your booth is in a Muslim neighborhood, it could be harassment and incitement to violence. and it could be stalking, if we tweak the hypothetical a bit, and have her relocating her table to paths which Muslims are likely to take to the Mosque, the grocery store, etc. No matter where they go, they can't escape the offensive message.

The pamphlet you describe sounds from the title that it might have some serious intellectual content, unlike Lauren's pamphlet which, let's admit, was calculated to offend. Your hypothetical presents her as passive, but as I understand it, she wasn't just sitting there at a booth with her pamphlets. She was actively distributing them--to Muslims. The footage shows Southern handing out pamphlets and people stopping to confront her over the posters.“I wanted to see what would happen," she said, if we played the role of an LGBT social justice warrior activist and set up a stall to celebrate LGBT diversity within the Islamic community.” That's when the British authorities moved in. That statement alone would probably be enough for American courts, who have little patience with such pranky "experiments'. There's a big difference between the Anti-Socialist pamphlet you describe and hers. God is, by definition, sacred--that believers hold most sacred--much closer to the way they feel about their mothers, children or spouses." If your pamphlet were entitled "You Mama (or Daughter or Spouse) is gay", you might expect a fight. And if you're aware that your target is particularly touchy on the subject, that would make it worse. To quote the U.S. Supreme Court in Chaplinsky again those are "fighting" words "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace," 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." It's a judgement call, but making those is what judges do.

Besides, to make the hypothetical more realistic, let's suppose you are a foreign national and are trying to get into the country with your pamphlet to cause trouble, as was the case with Ms. Southern. That would be more like the situation in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), in which a Bulgarian Marxist theoretician seeking to attend a conference was denied entry to the U.S. under a statute barring those who advocate or publish "the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism." If this were a situation of an American citizen or resident alien doing the same thing, he couldn't have been denied his right to speak, but the Supreme Court upheld the ban because Mandel had no right to enter the country.

 

A common alt-right tactic is to do something you know will be offensive to someone and than act like you are the victim because that person did not allow themselves to be offended. You see the problem is with them because they have a problem with freedom of speech. Also a common Nazi tactic and more and more they become one and the same. The irony being that in their ideal society this would not be allowed. They ask for privileges as the "victim" not afforded to the dominator.

You are handing out pamphlets not to spread the word but to annoy. If your goal is to make a good impression about what you stand for and what you would not do it in the way you do. Many groups actuly looking for a change are never rude or pushy and they are smart enough to not use words like "cancer" when it comes to your lifestyle choices. But"snowflakes don't like haring their religion is cancer" sure does make a good Youtube title. You know your audience.

 

6

On balance I’m comfortable with them, but the bit I was asking you to explain is -

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?

I really haven’t a clue what you are going on about - do you?

 

6

Do you mean that you do now realise that capitalism and socialism are not simply black and white matters, that it is a lot more complicated than that?

Again its more complex you have even said so – you’ve argued that in your view there is a difference between private and public places and you in private places the ‘owner’ has the right to curtail or even disallow freedom of speech that is why you would not let Bob into your house. You have even said that if someone is in a public place and shouting into a megaphone they can (and should be) cited, fined, or arrested for disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace.

So for you in certain circumstance there isn’t ‘freedom of speech’ or ‘freedom of assembly’ (as you’ve already said you wouldn’t let Bob into your house).

You say there should be freedom of the press, should the press be allowed to print complete lies about someone or something with absolutely no come back?

What if Bob had a newspaper and printed abusive and untrue stories about you wife day after day that she used to be a prostitute in a crack den giving blow jobs for a dollar a go and that she has had incestuous relationships with her kids and so on and so on.

What if a newspaper or someone kept spreading lies about a group of people, Jews, black people, Muslims would that be ok in you view?

Again I ask you to stop thinking in absolutist terms, very few things in the real world are black or white or totally all or nothing.

 

6

Then you really need to read what I said more carefully because you have got it (and not for the first time) completely wrong.

I’m not sure if you are a racist but I am pretty certain you are a bigot.

As I told you when you said

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

So again 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 all been based on your own bias and prejudiced beliefs.

 

6

That explains nothing – you said

London has been rapidly replacing its native population as the murder rate rises. How can this be? It’s as if the people who are arriving in mass, are more violent than the natives. Who would’ve seen this coming?

You then go on to say that the violent newcomers are the Muslims.

So again I ask what are you suggesting – your say you still want people to come to the UK and London you just want the 'right' people ones that would fit in with those people that can trace their family back to someone born in ‘London’ a hundred years ago?

And what about the people that have moved to London over the last one hundred years who you don't like what would you do with them are they to be thrown out of the city, deported from the UK, what, what is your solution?

It seems to me that you didn’t and haven’t thought through any of this – you let yourself be led by you own prejudices and bias rather than rational thought

 

Asmo

As i've said I’m not sure if 6 is a racist, I am pretty certain he is a bigot.

 

Yes, his stances and argumentation makes clear he's discriminating against certain groups of people. I've come across several people from 'islamic culture' (as if thats the only way to perceive people from the middle east.. or always the best way to identify/label an individual from there lol) that were less of a bigot. Some were even muslim

 

I'm interested in what the OP has to say about this. An honest mistake? A blatant copy of a 'news' site he is too eager to believe because it suits his argument/mindset? A serious and conscious attempt to mislead others?

 

How am I a bigot?

Is it because I don’t follow the rules of political correctness when describing my date's appearance? Is it because I believe not all cultures are equal? Or is it just because you say so?

Feminists, left wing race baiters, Michael Moore, and HuffPo writers do this on a daily basis. Stop pretending like left-wing provocateurs don’t exist.

Some call it annoyance, I consider it thought provoking and opening a discussion. I support freedom of speech for all saints and bigots alike.

That's just like saying that organizing a Trump protest in an area full of Trump supporters is harassment and inciting violence. It's people like you who make these "fictional" Muslim no-go zones a potential reality. Since you seem to agree that our free speech should become limited within a Muslim neighborhood.

How the hell is "I'm offended" a valid argument to silence anyone?

But hasn't the left been extending an olive branch and trying to build a bridge between the LGBT community and Islam for years? Maybe Lauren is just doing you guys a favor.

It's funny how the left is pushing for the abolition of ICE, and opening of borders. But if it's a conservative journalist trying to get in, they can fuck right off.