Swedish Democrats Organize Controversial Gay Pride Rally

[Zrhajan]

Yes, and?

The Bible is filled with just as much ridiculous bullshit as the Quran, but do people actually follow it to the letter?

Some do, but most don't. Same prospect applies to Islam.

The vast majority of muslims (80% to upwards of 90%), dislike homosexuals according to this survey: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Okay, just to be damned clear about this, Freedom of religion means fucking freedom of religion. It doesn't mean "Freedom of religion except for those people who have language in their holy books which means they'd theoretically have to kill people" because if that were what freedom of religion meant, we wouldn't have any damn religion except buddhism and a few others.

[Wisconsin9]

No it's not the fucking logic of my fucking argument! Christ! How the fuck are you coming to these fucking conclusions!?

Because that is the fucking logic of your fucking argument. You may not intended to say it, but you did.

You're going to have to spell it the fuck out for me, letter by fucking letter.

No, it's not, but if you walk up to a drunk biker and go into a speech about how his mother's a whore and expect anything other than your teeth flying across the bar, you're a fucking idiot. He's going to jail, yeah, but you're spending the next month in a hospital and eating through a straw for the rest of your life.

Did you actually just say that? Being gay is the same as insulting someone? I guess the KKK are justified because the blacks provoked them by being black.

No, I said that doing something that pisses someone violent off and not expecting them to do something violent does not an intelligent person imply. Jesus fucking Christ.

[Ardoki]

Insulting someone's mother and not being heterosexual are not equivalent. It is insulting to even insinuate that.

Maybe this will help things.

You equated calling someone's mother a whore with being non-heterosexual. That is pretty offensive!

[Ardoki]

The vast majority of muslims (80% to upwards of 90%), dislike homosexuals according to this survey: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Okay, just to be damned clear about this, Freedom of religion means fucking freedom of religion. It doesn't mean "Freedom of religion except for those people who have language in their holy books which means they'd theoretically have to kill people" because if that were what freedom of religion meant, we wouldn't have any damn religion except buddhism and a few others.

I do support the elimination of anti-scientific, superstitious, and hateful views from society. All of them, I don't discriminate.

[Zrhajan]

Okay, just to be damned clear about this, Freedom of religion means fucking freedom of religion. It doesn't mean "Freedom of religion except for those people who have language in their holy books which means they'd theoretically have to kill people" because if that were what freedom of religion meant, we wouldn't have any damn religion except buddhism and a few others.

I do support the elimination of anti-scientific, superstitious, and hateful views from society. All of them, I don't discriminate.

Yeah, and Freedom of Religion remains a fundamental human right, and will remain such until such time as the Declaration of Human Rights is entirely irrelevant, so I think your opinion remains irrelevant in this case.

[Cannabis Islands]

Because that is the fucking logic of your fucking argument. You may not intended to say it, but you did.

You're going to have to spell it the fuck out for me, letter by fucking letter.

Did you actually just say that? Being gay is the same as insulting someone? I guess the KKK are justified because the blacks provoked them by being black.

No, I said that doing something that pisses someone violent off and not expecting them to do something violent does not an intelligent person imply. Jesus fucking Christ.

No more than two or three posts ago, you said that you believed that there is a rational justification of violence against LGBT if they march in a hostile area, then compare homophobic people seeing the to having their mother insulted. And before that, you implied that Muslims are more prone to violence than the general population.

[Wisconsin9]

Maybe this will help things.

You equated calling someone's mother a whore with being non-heterosexual. That is pretty offensive!

So fucking report me then. I'm fucking done. Y'all wanna keep putting words in my fucking mouth, go right the fuck ahead. But as for this thread,

[Ardoki]

I do support the elimination of anti-scientific, superstitious, and hateful views from society. All of them, I don't discriminate.

Yeah, and Freedom of Religion remains a fundamental human right, and will remain such until such time as the Declaration of Human Rights is entirely irrelevant, so I think your opinion remains irrelevant in this case.

As long as it is not hateful, anti-scientific, superstitious, or such, it would be permitted.

Obviously spirituality and superstition would be permitted for private individuals though.

[Zrhajan]

Yeah, and Freedom of Religion remains a fundamental human right, and will remain such until such time as the Declaration of Human Rights is entirely irrelevant, so I think your opinion remains irrelevant in this case.

As long as it is not hateful, anti-scientific, superstitious, or such, it would be permitted.

Obviously spirituality and superstition would be permitted for private individuals though.

Freedom of religion is universal. That means, no matter your belief, the state has no right to interfere in it. That includes your "hateful, anti-scientific, superstitious" beliefs. If I want to say that I believe that a god exists who wishes me to protest and argue idiots on the internet, then that is my right. So long as I do not infringe upon the rights of others, it is perfectly fine.

[New Grestin]

Yeah, and Freedom of Religion remains a fundamental human right, and will remain such until such time as the Declaration of Human Rights is entirely irrelevant, so I think your opinion remains irrelevant in this case.

As long as it is not hateful, anti-scientific, superstitious, or such, it would be permitted.

Obviously spirituality and superstition would be permitted for private individuals though.

And now we're suggesting Orwellian bullshit.

[Othelos]

Maybe this will help things.

You equated calling someone's mother a whore with being non-heterosexual. That is pretty offensive!

That's not what they said at all,

[Cederland]

So we've established:

• Your point is simple
• Whenever you comment something and I easily dismantle your argument, you never respond and just act like you never made it
• People shouldn't be judged by the people they follow (I guess we shouldn't judge neo-nazis by Hitler either?)

*clap*

And we have hit Godwin's Law, folks.

No, you haven't easily dismantled my argument, you're just continuing to prove my point.

So, if someone is Islamic, then they're clearly a savage fucking monster from the Dark ages.

Fucking brilliant. Never mind the fact that not every Muslim follows every rule of the Quran. Never mind that holding such a view only drives the Moderates towards Radicalism. Never mind the fact that it's just a really dickish way to treat people.

Very good job, you completely blew my arguments out of the water.

My arguments:
Muslims have killed more people for religion than any other religion
The Muslim prophet was an arsonist and a violent person, unlike any other prophet
Modern Islam's practices are only mirrored by extremely old versions of modern religions

Your Arguments:
You're a generalizer (even though my argument is obviously based on the Quran and Muhammed and not a stereotype)
It can be translated differently (Muhammed translated it to violence)
Other religions killed a lot of people in the 1700s(just helped my case)

[Cannabis Islands]

You equated calling someone's mother a whore with being non-heterosexual. That is pretty offensive!

That's not what they said at all,

I agree, but it was a shit metaphor. A really shit metaphor. If people are offended by the sight of LGBT people, then it is the party that is offended that is at fault, not LGBT people.

[Noraika]

In the societies where LGBT communities have worked tirelessly for years to abolish stigma and become accepted member of society, and just only recently gained legal and societal successes, there is no room for people coming from other places to reinforce the remnants of the stigmas of the past.

Considering that integration policies in the Nordics leaves much to be desired, considering the alleged reports of abuse that homosexuals face from these new migrant populations, both within them and interacting with them, and the laws and cultures of the immigrant countries of origin - some of which have it punishable by law to be homosexual - it makes sense that, just as LGBT groups made their voices heard to highlight the issues they faced before with the general system and society, they would also go towards those new social pressures that they view as being detrimental to their societal goals.

[Cannabis Islands]

In the societies where LGBT communities have worked tirelessly for years to abolish stigma and become accepted member of society, and just only recently gained legal and societal successes, there is no room for people coming from other places to reinforce the remnants of the stigmas of the past.

Considering that integration policies in the Nordics leaves much to be desired, considering the alleged reports of abuse that homosexuals face from these new migrant populations, both within them and interacting with them, and the laws and cultures of the immigrant countries of origin - some of which have it punishable by law to be homosexual - it makes sense that, just as LGBT groups made their voices heard to highlight the issues they faced before with the general system and society, they would also go towards those new social pressures that they view as being detrimental to their societal goals.

Here. Here.

[Cederland]

In the societies where LGBT communities have worked tirelessly for years to abolish stigma and become accepted member of society, and just only recently gained legal and societal successes, there is no room for people coming from other places to reinforce the remnants of the stigmas of the past.

Considering that integration policies in the Nordics leaves much to be desired, considering the alleged reports of abuse that homosexuals face from these new migrant populations, both within them and interacting with them, and the laws and cultures of the immigrant countries of origin - some of which have it punishable by law to be homosexual - it makes sense that, just as LGBT groups made their voices heard to highlight the issues they faced before with the general system and society, they would also go towards those new social pressures that they view as being detrimental to their societal goals.

Agreed.

[Sam Hyde]

Their intentions definitely aren't pure in this, but there also is a major need to combat homophobia within Islam. The party definitely holds unacceptable stereotypes about Muslims and presumes all of them act like fundamentalists, but there has also been a major reluctance among the left to combat homophobia amongst Muslims. The party almost certainly has quite a few shitty intentions behind this, but the act in and of itself is by no means a bad thing.

They're hoping someone tries to attack them physically so they can publicize it as Gold Standard Muslim Behavior.

Now do you actually believe this or are you just being funny?

[Sam Hyde]

Sure, now it's Sweden's fault that some people don't like gay people.

Because economically disadvantaged people are some of the most open-minded individuals in the world.

Why do I feel like you wouldn't let rednecks in trailer parks use this excuse?

[Sam Hyde]

I don't see you using this excuse for poor whites in the US.

And just how many poor whites are out rallying against immigration reform again?

Like all of them. They're the ones hurt most by immigration from the Third World.

[The Alma Mater]

They're hoping someone tries to attack them physically so they can publicize it as Gold Standard Muslim Behavior.

Now do you actually believe this or are you just being funny?

I daresay that he is probably right. And that they will even get what they want - sofar certain groups of muslims have shown to find it incredibly hard to not respond violently to provocation.

[Risottia]

No, they look more like ultra-libertarian racists to me.

>ultra libertarian
>anti immigration

does not compute

No, it's quite the same thing you see with Geert Wilders, and also with other recent right-wing movements.

Extremely libertarian towards those who are of the right ethnicity, nationality, religion, skin colour, and yearly income.

If you want to see something just as paradoxical, take the National Bolshevists or the various red-brown parties.

[Cannabis Islands]

Now do you actually believe this or are you just being funny?

I daresay that he is probably right. And that they will even get what they want - sofar certain groups of muslims have shown to find it incredibly hard to not respond violently to provocation.

Just for the record, I have not said that Muslims are prone to violence. However, I have to ask you this, Alma, if LGBT people are having a parade, and a Muslim that is offended responses to this using physically violence, is it the fault of the LGBT people in the parade or the Muslim that reacted violently?

[Sam Hyde]

Now do you actually believe this or are you just being funny?

I daresay that he is probably right. And that they will even get what they want - sofar certain groups of muslims have shown to find it incredibly hard to not respond violently to provocation.

And whose problem is that?

And please pull a Gauthier and say it's somehow Sweden's fault.

[Sam Hyde]

I daresay that he is probably right. And that they will even get what they want - sofar certain groups of muslims have shown to find it incredibly hard to not respond violently to provocation.

Just for the record, I have not said that Muslims are prone to violence. However, I have to ask you this, Alma, if LGBT people are having a parade, and a Muslim that is offended responses to this using physically violence, is it the fault of the LGBT people in the parade or the Muslim that reacted violently?

Hmm...I'd blame the lax immigration controls that let such a fool immigrate. Did you know that back in the early 20th Century on Ellis Island, American immigration officials would actually heavily screen immigrants for things like diseases, illiteracy, extreme political beliefs, a lack employable skills, and low IQ to make sure we don't get complete barbarians.

[The Alma Mater]

I daresay that he is probably right. And that they will even get what they want - sofar certain groups of muslims have shown to find it incredibly hard to not respond violently to provocation.

And whose problem is that?

Everyones, sadly.
But the primary blame of course lies with the people who deem it necessary to respond with violence to nonviolent provocation.