NationStates

Von Halder wrote:considering also that other ideologies that had caused a huge number of dead (hard line communists in the gulag)

seem to be the "right thing"; second in the past of my nation there were few moments of increased prosperity and economic growth than when we were under fascist rule

I'm not justifing them, they've done great errors but I usually feel that people only talk about bad aspects, never positive one (German autobahn, for example is a nazi invention).

Ralkovia wrote:

Risottia wrote:In a constitutional democracy, oreventing the eventual rise to the power of a political party whose stated objectives are anticonstitutional saves everyone else's political freedom.

Lesser of two evils. Just like when the police have no other choice but to kill a criminal to prevent him from killing other people. You violate the his right to life to save other people's right to their lives.

When do we start arresting Shariah law advocates. I'm wanting to get in on this action.

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:All right, that makes sense, I suppose. Now why, exactly, are radical Islamists not be arrested? Shariah law, anyone?

Archlemeinge wrote:

Zaras wrote:
I doubt you know much about Sharia law.

Isn't sharia law where everyone has to respect muslims or die?

Sharia (Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], "legislation"; sp. shariah, sharīʿah;[1] also قانون إسلامي qānūn ʾIslāmī) is the moral code and religious law of Islam. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. Though interpretations of sharia vary between cultures, in its strictest definition it is considered the infallible law of God—as opposed to the human interpretation of the laws (fiqh).

There are two primary sources of sharia law: the precepts set forth in the Quran, and the example set by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Where it has official status, sharia is interpreted by Islamic judges (qadis) with varying responsibilities for the religious leaders (imams). For questions not directly addressed in the primary sources, the application of sharia is extended through consensus of the religious scholars (ulama) thought to embody the consensus of the Muslim Community (ijma). Islamic jurisprudence will also sometimes incorporate analogies from the Quran and Sunnah through qiyas, though Shia jurists prefer reasoning ('aql) to analogy.

Zaras wrote:

Archlemeinge wrote:Isn't sharia law where everyone has to respect muslims or die?

Yup, you're ignorant and uninformed. Fat surprise.

Sharia (Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], "legislation"; sp. shariah, sharīʿah;[1] also قانون إسلامي qānūn ʾIslāmī) is the moral code and religious law of Islam. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. Though interpretations of sharia vary between cultures, in its strictest definition it is considered the infallible law of God—as opposed to the human interpretation of the laws (fiqh).

There are two primary sources of sharia law: the precepts set forth in the Quran, and the example set by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Where it has official status, sharia is interpreted by Islamic judges (qadis) with varying responsibilities for the religious leaders (imams). For questions not directly addressed in the primary sources, the application of sharia is extended through consensus of the religious scholars (ulama) thought to embody the consensus of the Muslim Community (ijma). Islamic jurisprudence will also sometimes incorporate analogies from the Quran and Sunnah through qiyas, though Shia jurists prefer reasoning ('aql) to analogy.

Which kinds of Sharia law do you want to ban now? Cite exactly what you hate about Sharia law and which sects practice that.

Zaras wrote:

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:...

All right, that makes sense, I suppose. Now why, exactly, are radical Islamists not be arrested? Shariah law, anyone?

I doubt you know much about Sharia law.

Zaras wrote:Thanks for forgetting what Hitler's regime ultimately led to. What was that again?

Oh yeah, destroying Germany.

Neo-Nazis don't want to make Germany different, they want to ruin it.

Zaras wrote:Big fucking deal. I shouldn't be tolerant of people who are intolerant. Therein lies a paradox I don't want to fall for. Fuck 'em. If they can't tolerate other people, they can go fuck 'emselves with sharp things.

Zaras wrote:You don't seem to understand how reality and nuance work.

Zaras wrote:

Hippostania wrote:NPD and Die Linke both wish to break laws and violate people's rights.

Mothafuckin' source. Oh, wait, you have none. Therefore, you're lying.

Zaras wrote:

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:...

All right, that makes sense, I suppose. Now why, exactly, are radical Islamists not be arrested? Shariah law, anyone?

I doubt you know much about Sharia law.

Archlemeinge wrote:

Zaras wrote:
Yup, you're ignorant and uninformed. Fat surprise.



Which kinds of Sharia law do you want to ban now? Cite exactly what you hate about Sharia law and which sects practice that.

What the fuck is wrong with you? I asked a question and all you did was call me ignorant.

Ralkovia wrote:

Zaras wrote:
I doubt you know much about Sharia law.

So you're saying that Shariah Law Advocates don't want to adversely affect my rights?

Please tell me more about your fantasy land.

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:He wanted to control Europe. Through conquest.

That would obviously lead to war, but it was the Allies' fault for bombing cities full of innocents.

Not to mention the quite authoritarian anti-National Socialist laws that sprung up afterward

OK - you shouldn't be tolerant of people who are intolerant. You can believe that all you want, just don't claim to be a tolerant person.

Enlighten me as to how my statement was incorrect.

Zaras wrote:

Archlemeinge wrote:Isn't sharia law where everyone has to respect muslims or die?

Yup, you're ignorant and uninformed. Fat surprise.

Sharia (Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], "legislation"; sp. shariah, sharīʿah;[1] also قانون إسلامي qānūn ʾIslāmī) is the moral code and religious law of Islam. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. Though interpretations of sharia vary between cultures, in its strictest definition it is considered the infallible law of God—as opposed to the human interpretation of the laws (fiqh).

There are two primary sources of sharia law: the precepts set forth in the Quran, and the example set by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Where it has official status, sharia is interpreted by Islamic judges (qadis) with varying responsibilities for the religious leaders (imams). For questions not directly addressed in the primary sources, the application of sharia is extended through consensus of the religious scholars (ulama) thought to embody the consensus of the Muslim Community (ijma). Islamic jurisprudence will also sometimes incorporate analogies from the Quran and Sunnah through qiyas, though Shia jurists prefer reasoning ('aql) to analogy.

Which kinds of Sharia law do you want to ban now? Cite exactly what you hate about Sharia law and which sects practice that.

Zaras wrote:

Archlemeinge wrote:What the fuck is wrong with you? I asked a question and all you did was call me ignorant.

And uninformed. The tone of your question made me think you're not really interested in finding out anything about Sharia law but just want to get in on the EbulM00zlems action.

Ralkovia wrote:
So you're saying that Shariah Law Advocates don't want to adversely affect my rights?

Please tell me more about your fantasy land.

Please tell me more about how you know the differences between the different branches of Sharia law and all the different sects of Islam.

Oh wait, you can't, because you don't.

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:He wanted to control Europe. Through conquest.

So we should totally defend people deluded enough to agree with that.

That would obviously lead to war, but it was the Allies' fault for bombing cities full of innocents.

Attempted equivocation rejected.

Not to mention the quite authoritarian anti-National Socialist laws that sprung up afterward

Considering some statistics immediately post-war still showed a shocking amount of support for the Nazis, the Allies really needed to beat the fuckers over the head with exceptionally thick sticks (like forcing Germans to visit concentration camps, etc.) to get the point through.

OK - you shouldn't be tolerant of people who are intolerant. You can believe that all you want, just don't claim to be a tolerant person.

Tolerance is immediately cancelled by somebody else's intolerance. Why the fuck should I allow somebody to get away with that?

Enlighten me as to how my statement was incorrect.

If you want to defend civil rights and political freedoms, how the fuck does it make sense to let people who openly want to reduce them take part in the political process?

Hippostania wrote:

Zaras wrote:
Mothafuckin' source. Oh, wait, you have none. Therefore, you're lying.

See their party programme.

They're advocating violation of property rights under the guise of "democratization",

that people should be allowed to decide matters of private businessess and organizations that they have no business interfering with.

Die Linke is a criminal organization, and in my opinion

Die Linke and its Antifa goons are a much bigger threat to democracy than a bunch of nationalists who don't even have representation in the Bundestag.

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:

Zaras wrote:
I doubt you know much about Sharia law.

I know enough.

Ralkovia wrote:

Zaras wrote:
And uninformed. The tone of your question made me think you're not really interested in finding out anything about Sharia law but just want to get in on the EbulM00zlems action.



Please tell me more about how you know the differences between the different branches of Sharia law and all the different sects of Islam.

Oh wait, you can't, because you don't.



So we should totally defend people deluded enough to agree with that.



Attempted equivocation rejected.



Considering some statistics immediately post-war still showed a shocking amount of support for the Nazis, the Allies really needed to beat the fuckers over the head with exceptionally thick sticks (like forcing Germans to visit concentration camps, etc.) to get the point through.



Tolerance is immediately cancelled by somebody else's intolerance. Why the fuck should I allow somebody to get away with that?



If you want to defend civil rights and political freedoms, how the fuck does it make sense to let people who openly want to reduce them take part in the political process?

Please tell me more about how I don't know specifically what I know. I really would like to hear you justify Shariah Law Advocates.

Archlemeinge wrote:Multiculturalism ruins culture.

Hippostania wrote:They're advocating violation of property rights ...

DIE LINKE fights
for a different, democratic economic order that subjects the market regulation of production and distribution to democratic, social and ecological framing and control.

It has to be based on public and democratically controlled ownership in services of general interest, of the social infrastructure, in the power industry and in the financial sector. We want the democratic socialisation of further structurally relevant areas on the basis of state, municipal, co-operative or work-force ownership.

Business must be subject to stringent competition control.

Effective employee rights and co-determination rights must be assured in all enterprises.

Ralkovia wrote:Please tell me more about how I don't know specifically what I know. I really would like to hear you justify Shariah Law Advocates.

Varijnland wrote:

Ralkovia wrote:
Please tell me more about how I don't know specifically what I know. I really would like to hear you justify Shariah Law Advocates.

I'd like to hear that too. God, he's just like my knobhead brother.

Slavoland wrote:if anywhere right-wing parties should be banned that is in italy. the society has neverom properly gone from some doctrines. their president, a communist, dreams a "Italian dalmatia and istra". Zadar will never be zara again.

Von Halder wrote: (German autobahn, for example is a nazi invention).

Ralkovia wrote:

Archlemeinge wrote:Multiculturalism ruins culture.

Multiculturalism certainly doesn't.

People who refuse to adapt to the ways of the old culture and add nothing to it ruins it.

Varijnland wrote:I'd like to hear that too. God, he's just like my knobhead brother.

Archlemeinge wrote:Zaras is the most ignorant person i have ever seen on the internet, wow.