Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned women?

[DavidB]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Actually, no. Most of us feel that nations that are BY LAW exclusively Islamic would be just as "xenophobic fascist" as your viewpoint is. One standard for everyone. You don't get to pretend that your views are any different than what they are by whining that Muslims have the same view.

Oh, so I am a xenophobic fascist then?

For what, wanting MY country, culture and society to be protected from dangerous ideologies like Islam?

Well, I guess the sacrifices me made during world war two, protecting our countries, cultures and societies and all, from the onslaught of Nazism and Imperial Japanese, was a complete xenophobic fascist waste of time and effort, we should have been much more tolerable and accommodating to those ideologies.

My grandfather would be rolling in his grave, if he knew just how gutless the people in the west have become. Good thing he isn't alive to witness it.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

You're right, my apologies, it's just banning specific free thought and expression that you disagree with. Short of inciting or enacting violence or hatred, all forms of expression and thought should be allowed. Even if some of those are reading from the same book as the extremists.

Yes, but that's the point, Islam incites and enacts violence and hatred. And it is not about whether or not I disagree with Islam, it is about the nature of the ideology itself. It is an ideology of hatred, violence and subjugation. I'm sorry if you do not agree with my position, but I will not tolerate this ideology in my country, not now, not ever, no matter where it comes from, Islam, Nazism, Communism, or anywhere else.

What are you going to do about it? Seriously. What can you do beyond moan at strangers?

I agree, however, as has been stated already, Muslims are like everyone else in that they're hypocritical and will pick and choose from their religious text.

References for this please.

I want Islam banned because it is an ideology of hatred, violence and subjugation, plain and simple. And if I had it my way, those bleeding heart liberals would be prosecuted for treason, for aiding and abetting enemies of the state. And I did not throw a fit, I spent a great deal of my time and effort educating myself about Islam and it's ideology, before deciding to oppose it.

Treason, eh? Please explain this 'aiding and abetting' and how Muslims are 'enemies of the state'. You will have to name the country you're in, but seeing as you're so proud and all, it shouldn't be an issue for you.

I'd ban Islam. Muslims can stay, so long as they don't practice Islam. I'm a reasonable person, if they don't want to stay and want to practice Islam, then there are 52 Islamic nations on this planet where they can practice their ideology to their hearts content.

Lol. Muslims ARE followers of Islam, you cannot be a Muslim if you don't 'practice Islam'. Didn't you say just above spent a great deal of my time and effort educating myself about Islam and it's ideology, before deciding to oppose it.
:lol:

Methinks there's some dishonesty floating about...

In the case of nationalism, if your referring to Nazism and Communism, then yes, that was definitely a fuck up. But be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water my friend, because without a strong national identity, built on moral and ethical virtues, ideally, then what do we have? You prefer Anarchy?

:lol: :lol:

Fuck national identities and bullshit cultural 'virtues'. Nationalists are just as thick as faith-fueled radicals.

I like how it's either your way or WAAAAAAHNARCHY!!! Go and read up about anarchy, because it's not what you think it is.

I have no problem with Muslims per se, but I do have a major problem with Islam. If you do not understand why Islam is a dangerously hostile ideology of hatred, violence, bigotry, sexism and subjugation, then I suggest you make the effort to read and understand the Koran and Sharia law.

If you don't know that ALL Muslims follow Islam (you seem to be under the impression that they're an ethnic group like semites or kurds; they're not) I suggest you make some effort to ACTUALLY read it instead of pretending you know what you're talking about.

Islam has as its stated goal, the complete and total domination of world, at any cost. Now that is something to be wary of, very wary indeed.

Christianity also aspires to complete domination of the planet...

Oh, so I am a xenophobic fascist then?

For what, wanting MY country, culture and society to be protected from dangerous ideologies like Islam?

Well, I guess the sacrifices me made during world war two, protecting our countries, cultures and societies and all, from the onslaught of Nazism and Imperial Japanese, was a complete xenophobic fascist waste of time and effort, we should have been much more tolerable and accommodating to those ideologies.

You're equating Islam with Nazism? Really?

My grandfather would be rolling in his grave, if he knew just how gutless the people in the west have become. Good thing he isn't alive to witness it.

:lol: Gutless :lol:

So bitching about Muslims on the internet on a forum with no Muslims is your way of showing how gutsy and strong you are, unlike all these other weak westerners?

 

[DavidB]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

You're equating Islam with Nazism? Really?

Yes!

 

[Baranduin]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

For what, wanting MY country, culture and society to be protected from dangerous ideologies like Islam?

Also, from here:

Australia is still mostly a secular country, but unfortunately, with high levels of immigration from third world countries, the general atmosphere in Australia is changing. We used to be a proud nation of predominately white Europeans, with a predominantly white European culture, but now the climate is changing, being forced to become a socialist driven multicultural shit hole, pandering to the desires of ideologies such as Islam.

So come and enjoy Australia, before it has been ruined by Islamic loving Socialists.

Oddly enough, the society and culture that you think you are preserving apparently doesn't want to be protected from islam. Or you don't want to preserve precisely that part, alongside with the section 116 of your own constitution?

As I already stated, you may want to take your own advise, look for a place with a Islam-hating white European culture, and move there, as muslims would have to move to any of the 52 countries.

Well, I guess the sacrifices me made during world war two, protecting our countries, cultures and societies and all, from the onslaught of Nazism and Imperial Japanese, was a complete xenophobic fascist waste of time and effort, we should have been much more tolerable and accommodating to those ideologies.

It's funny that you're so willing to promote an authoritarian measure to forbade authoritarian ideologies.

My country was too busy protecting his own culture and society, and prosecuting bleeding heart liberals for treason, for aiding and abetting enemies of the state, to make any noticeable sacrifice during the WWII, though. Perhaps it's that.

Oh, so I am a xenophobic fascist then?

Every time I hear that, it's from someone trying to provoke a direct accusation so either they can take offense, or the other person has to concede the point to avoid to offend. Defend your points for what they are and with arguments, instead of abusing people's politeness to win a discussion. Whether someone is a xenophobic fascist (or a fundie, or a radical muslim, or a heart-bleeding liberal, or an open-minded freethinker) or not is irrelevant to whether s/he is right or wrong about an issue.

Surely those rhetoric questions have a name, but the closer I can come up with is "pushing an election between a genetic fallacy or an ad hominem". Any idea?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

You're equating Islam with Nazism? Really?

Yes!

So you're one of those "backdoor Holocaust deniers" who equate things to Nazism for no good reason, thereby trivializing and minimizing the Holocaust, WWII, and the deaths of some 20 million people to try to score a cheap and completely inaccurate point?

What a shame, that you really embrace the eliminationalist spirit of the Nazis. Political trouble at home? Find a scapegoat, dehumanize them, call for their complete removal... replace "Muslim" with "Jew" and you sound like a German in the early 1930s.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

:lol: Gutless :lol:

So bitching about Muslims on the internet on a forum with no Muslims is your way of showing how gutsy and strong you are, unlike all these other weak westerners?

It isn't just whining, it is being so pants-wetting scared of Muslims that he's willing to go online and take a fear-induced piss on the ideas of modern Western democracies... and then pretend that he's got "guts" to do so.

Brave people don't walk around scared shitless of Muslims or anyone else. Especially since most Muslims are peaceful, just like most Christians aren't part of the Phelps clan, and most Catholics aren't child molesters.

 

[butterbattle]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

I'm not talking about banning someone's belief, there are many places in this world where Islam can be practised exclusively. I'm talking about banning it in my country.

And by the way, why is it perfectly acceptable for an exclusively Islamic nation to practice their ideology and belief the way they desire, but when I want to live in a society that is aligned with my belief systems (which is devoid of Islam) then oh boy, I'm just a xenophobic fascist.

Here is where your reasoning falls short. As a general rule, your positive rights should only extend until they potentially violate someone else's rights. Your right to swing your fists through the air ends at my face. Ergo, both you and Muslim have the right to practice your respective ideologies, given that you do not infringe upon anyone else's rights. It is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to practice their ideology and beliefs, until they want to blow up a building or stone someone. Likewise, it is perfectly acceptable for you to practice your belief system, but that cannot include banning Islam.

Perhaps you are getting confused about the issue of fairness? You're thinking that since there are exclusively Islamic countries, it is only fair that there should be an anti-Islamic country? Or, are you simply selfish and not thinking about the innocent Muslims that would suffer as a result of your ban? Perhaps you don't care about Muslims? I would not enact a form of government that simply banned whatever I really didn't like. You're an atheist, aren't you? How would you like it if your government banned atheism? Haven't you ever heard the sentence, don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you? In this case, two wrongs don't make a right; two governments that force their belief systems on their citizens is worse than one. The truly fair scenario would be for both governments to allow their citizens the freedom of religion.

And, how is banning someone's belief in your country not banning someone's belief? Jeez, you're describing what you're doing using the same phrase that you're using to describe what you're denying that you're doing. Are you being sarcastic?

 

[Prolescum]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

What a shame, that you really embrace the eliminationalist spirit of the Nazis. Political trouble at home? Find a scapegoat, dehumanize them, call for their complete removal... replace "Muslim" with "Jew" and you sound like a German in the early 1930s.

So very much this ^^^ :lol:

 

[theatheistguy]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

I'm not talking about banning someone's belief, there are many places in this world where Islam can be practised exclusively. I'm talking about banning it in my country.

And by the way, why is it perfectly acceptable for an exclusively Islamic nation to practice their ideology and belief the way they desire, but when I want to live in a society that is aligned with my belief systems (which is devoid of Islam) then oh boy, I'm just a xenophobic fascist.

Give me a break.

First, I've never called you a 'xenophobic fascist', thus far I've not seen enough evidence to make that assessment. To those calling you a fascist, you're throwing round a word you clearly don't understand. As for having an irrational fear and hatred of outsiders, again, I don't have enough evidence to say this. What I would say however, is that many of your views have come across as fascist and/or xenophobic.

Second, your response to Islamic states not allowing non-Muslim practices, is to turn your own state into an non-Muslim Mecca? Great thinking there, way to lead by example!

No, their intolerance must be met by our tolerance. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we tolerate their human rights violations, but rather we tolerate them like any other person. We judge them on their actions, not their beliefs, after all, we're not Allah or Yahweh or Jehovah.

You're reminding me of a joke by Frankie Boyle:
"Serbia is the most tolerant nation in the world, after having massacred all it's intolerant citizens."

 

[kenandkids]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

WTF?!?!?!
This convo has degenerated this far?
You simply cannot ban a concept, any more than killing a martyr!
I find islam to be repugnant, just like parts one and two of that disgusting trilogy, yet you can't ban them.
Islam is no more inherently wrong or "evil" than christianity, and this isn't said in it's favour.