I think you'll find that American Christians are responsible for far more anti-gay violence than Muslims are for terrorism. Somehow I can't see you making the same argument in favor of a Muslim calling for the death of all X.
I think you'll find that American Christians are responsible for far more anti-gay violence than Muslims are for terrorism. Somehow I can't see you making the same argument in favor of a Muslim calling for the death of all X.
Hope is the denial of reality
No. Get over your hang ups with Muslims, it's unbecoming.Originally Posted by Loki
If a Muslim stated that according to their beliefs all apostates and infidels would not receive everlasting life, and instead an eternal punishment in the hereafter, then I would absolutely make the same argument.
But I'm not arguing for investigations or action against either group, so your point is moot. Simply saying a horrific thing is not enough for me to believe an investigation is required.
If someone calls for someone else to die I think it is reasonable for that to trigger an investigation. If it turns out to be nothing the investigation can be closed rather quickly but I see no reason not to investigate.
Lewk hasn't said a thing about evidence indicating a person was actually seeking to commit a crime, just speaking in a way that favors or defends the idea of jihad. Same way he favors surveillance and investigation of anyone who worships at a mosque.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
There is a world of difference between proposing surveillance of those that go into Mosques and those who advocated murder. Unless you think the two are the same?
And what do you think constitutes being "pro-jihad"? Because for Lewk, it's pretty much the former. Again, advocacy was not the standard here. It was being "pro" something.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I would consider being in favour of jihad as pro jihad. The clue is in the name.
If you're asking should those pro jihad be investigated when you really mean should those who go into Mosques be investigated then you're asking the wrong questions. I would assume too that is offensive to the bulk of Mosque goers who are not pro jihad.
Not good enough "Pro jihad" is an expression of everything from defending the idea of a kulturkampf from an Islamic perspective to flying a plane into a tower. Do you think someone should be called a guerilla rather than a terorrist? That could be pro-jihad. Do you think either the Islamic religion or the political areas where it is dominant are under attack by US imperialism and say they're justified in defending themselves? That's definitely pro-jihad. Being pro-jihad or even expressing pro-jihad opinions, is not and cannot be probable cause. Al-Jazeera has reported a great deal of pro-jihad material, does that mean an investigation into it is called for after every report?
Again, Lewk expressed a standard that has NOTHING to do with committing an offense. His standard was making statements that defended or supported jihad (a concept, not a crime) in some fashion. Not engaging in it. Not inciting it. Not even advocating it. Just being "pro" in some fashion.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Pro-bullying statements? You've been making some oddball accusations lately. Ultimately, even if I had said "yeah bullies are cool they help prepare people for the real world!" or some other nonsense that isn't the same type of situation at all. Now on the other hand if I said something along the lines of "Honestly those kids in Colorado who shot up a school, I admire them for standing up to the system!" you're damn right I would expect someone to follow-up on that, just like I would expect someone who praised the night club shooter to be looked into as well.
And frankly I don't think you are actively disagree if you are honest with yourself. Someone quoting OBL and talking about how Jews need to die and death to the Great Satan... you think homeland security should ignore it?
Right which is why I'm not in favor of jailing people over stating it. I am in favor of anti-terrorism investigations being more than completely reactive in dealing with the aftermath of a slaughter.
You'll need to define what 'anti-gay violence' is. Because I can tell you far more people have been murdered by terrorists than from anti-gay Christian violence. (I specify anti-gay Christian violence because Muslim countries regularly kill gay people just for being gay and the body count may be pretty damn high.)
If we start counting in 2002, your numbers are simply wrong. By a lot.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...inst-lgbt.html
Last edited by Loki; 03-09-2017 at 03:27 AM.
Hope is the denial of reality
Page not found.
And its the NYT... I'll look at it but you should never complain about breittbart again.NYT is one of the most partisan and sloppy papers out there.
Fixed.
Unlike Breitbart, the NY Times doesn't make shit up.
Hope is the denial of reality
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01...ualifications/Fixed.
Unlike Breitbart, the NY Times doesn't make shit up.
"It recorded 88 homicides of L.G.B.T. people from 2012 to 2015. The data offers insight into the victims of extreme violence, but the total number L.G.B.T. homicides is most likely much higher since the group is not able to collect data nationwide."
Actually I'm not wrong. You can read what I wrote, just scroll up.
"Because I can tell you far more people have been murdered by terrorists than from anti-gay Christian violence."
This is absolutely true. For one, it isn't clear that all of those LGBT victims were killed by Christian violence. If you'll recall one of the biggest mass shootings targeting gays was done by a Muslim.
Since you like the NYT I'll use it as a source.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...the-world.html
"In total, more than 1,200 people outside of Iraq and Syria have been killed in attacks inspired or coordinated by the Islamic State, according to a New York Times analysis."
And that is just ISIS not all Muslims terrorists!
Sloppy reporting sure, but they openly quote the person making that claim. As for being one of the most partisan papers? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You're going to compare the occasional exaggeration or sloppy reporting with a consistent pattern of blatant lies and explicit cheerleading for Trump?
Hope is the denial of reality
It goes beyond just sloppy reporting with clear bias (like they did with Perry). Want to talk about 30+ days of Abu Ghrabi frontage stories *in a row* - NYT have long been ultra biased to the left. I don't claim Breitbart is better when it comes to bias I'm just giving you the same dose of crap for your side's biased reporting.
Certain European countries have experienced what it means if you give all political norms an equal chance. Not all feel they can make free speech a totem without running enormous risks of loss of life.
Congratulations America
Why not? Students were ending up dead there and you insisted it wasn't something the administration should bother with. That's a pro-bullying stance and there you've actually dealing with deaths. Which deaths resulted from a specific defense of jihad that you're using as justification here?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
So you are in favor of an investigation as to the extent of your involvement in bullying minors?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Under your logic deciding that the government shouldn't enact 'sin laws' like laws against drug use and gambling means the person is "pro drug use and pro gambling."
That is what "pro" means, Lewk. It's sure as hell more than neutral, seeing as it's actively against trying to act against those things. And again, since you've advocated surveilling and investigating people just because they worship at a mosque, I've got plenty of evidence that you're idea of "pro-jihad" really is that loose and broadly inclusive.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
That's only true if you exclusively define support and opposition using a person's most extreme position as the index. Otherwise it's perfectly accurate and reasonable for Lewk to say he opposes drug use but opposes the government's punishment of drug use even more. If you plot his opposition to the two on a scale with neutrality in the middle you might find both on the same side of the scale. That increased drug use would be a likely consequence of legalizing drug use is irrelevant. Lewk might not understand the consequences, or he may be neutral about them, or he may prefer them to one alternative but not to others. Because Lewk is simultaneously against compassion and proper care for drug addicts you might even say that this opposition to drug laws demonstrates his extreme hatred of drug use: he wants to see a lot of drug users suffer and die and thus set an example to others. There are multiple interpretations. Your interpretation is the least honest and charitable of them all. Which is obviously in keeping with our time-honored traditions but still problematic.
Lewk's views on how to treat Muslims can be explored adequately without playing these kinds of tricks. As you say, the evidence speaks for itself.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
They should be treated the same as everyone else and stop being pandered to.
If anyone else was calling for mass-murder they'd be investigated but call it jihad and it's racist to want to investigate it? Don't talk bullshit.
Except mass-murder is only one interpretation of jihad, and not a terribly popular one at that. It also doesn't explain Lewk's call for close monitoring of Muslim neighborhoods and mosques. He's basically assuming that being a Muslim is sufficient grounds for suspicion that someone supports the mass murder type of jihad. Just like he assumes blacks are going to commit violent crime, which justifies the use of preemptive violence against them.
Hope is the denial of reality
It might be. . . except that again, we already have the demonstration of what Lewk thinks is being "pro-jihad." It's being an observant Muslim. Otherwise he could not advocate investigating people just because they were in a mosque for worship.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
No, anyone else would not be investigated for "calling for mass murder."
"Cops should just be able to shoot illegal immigrants" is calling for mass murder. I don't think it merits an investigation.
"God will smite down the sinning homosexual" is calling for mass-murder. I don't think it merits an investigation.
"At this point, we have two options. We can shoot the police when they get within 50' of us and then turn ourselves in peaceably for that crime, or we can mind our own business and get shot for walking while black" after the latest unlawful shooting makes the headlines is calling for mass-murder but should not be investigated.
Remember the Giffords shooting, that US representative that got shot by a lone crazy? Half this board was convinced that using some variety of crosshairs or bullseye in campaign imagery was effectively calling for mass-murder. The terms you are using for speech worth investigating demonstrate the same kind of broad over-interpretation and apply far more broadly than what should or feasibly CAN be investigated.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote