"This is a Muslim Area" Shariah law gangs in action

[North Stradia]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran ... olence.htm
http://infidelsarecool.com/2008/01/top- ... -must-see/

Look, every religion is bad. There is no differences between them.

In fact, the Bible is though as a literal work in many schools through Europe but in other hand the Quran not. And it isnt fair.

Under Sharia law, Muslims are allowed to kill apostates (Muslims who leave Islam). Do you want Muslims killing apostates in Europe?

[Khodoristan]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran ... olence.htm
http://infidelsarecool.com/2008/01/top- ... -must-see/

Look, every religion is bad. There is no differences between them.

In fact, the Bible is though as a literal work in many schools through Europe but in other hand the Quran not. And it isnt fair.

No its not. Europe is the most militantly secular place on earth, save maybe China or North Korea.

[Typhlochactas]

Democratically. Check.

More specifically?

Introducing an Amendment that repeals the 2nd Amendment.

It's fine to repeal the law through the law.

But wait, Typhlochactas! Doesn't that present a contradiction? After all, abolishing free speech with free speech fits that standard!

It does in a way, but there's a difference. You can always put the second amendment back into effect. You can't put free speech back in to effect if people will punish you for speaking in favor of it.

[New Sapienta]

There's nothing stupid about extending the protection of the law even to people who don't agree with that law.

It becomes stupid when you protect people with a law they want to get rid of. If you let people who want to get rid of free speech talk, you inch closer to the abolishment of it. A society that believes in tolerance should not tolerate the intolerant. A society that believes in rights should not tolerate those who do not believe in rights.

We were discussing imprisoning GIE for opposing free speech.

I don't prefer to get into a ''you said, to which I said'' thing.

I rather doubt that.

Nice to hear it.

So then you don't believe in free speech?

[Typhlochactas]

It becomes stupid when you protect people with a law they want to get rid of. If you let people who want to get rid of free speech talk, you inch closer to the abolishment of it. A society that believes in tolerance should not tolerate the intolerant. A society that believes in rights should not tolerate those who do not believe in rights.



I don't prefer to get into a ''you said, to which I said'' thing.



Nice to hear it.

So then you don't believe in free speech?

I don't believe in protecting people who want to get rid of it.

[New Sapienta]

So then you don't believe in free speech?

I don't believe in protecting people who want to get rid of it.

So then essentially, you don't believe in free speech?

Welcome to jail.

[Typhlochactas]

I don't believe in protecting people who want to get rid of it.

So then essentially, you don't believe in free speech?

Welcome to jail.

I don't believe in protecting certain forms of speech, which is more or less the society we have today.

[New Sapienta]

So then essentially, you don't believe in free speech?

Welcome to jail.

I don't believe in protecting certain forms of speech, which is more or less the society we have today.

Except that advocating your poitical view iis diffrent from screaming fire in a theatre.

[Typhlochactas]

I don't believe in protecting certain forms of speech, which is more or less the society we have today.

Except that advocating your poitical view iis diffrent from screaming fire in a theatre.

That's not exactly true.

[North Calaveras]

You can break laws if you want, as long as the ref dosn't see it it's all good. Besides, if they ever got rid of the 2nd amendment completly regular joes would probably be getting guns just to protect themselves in the United States, dosn't make them bad people, just doing what they believe is neccessary to protect them and their loved ones from people who don't follow the law.

[New Sapienta]

Except that advocating your poitical view iis diffrent from screaming fire in a theatre.

That's not exactly true.

It is though, because the first advocated your personal opinion, while the second causes everyone in a theatre to be panicked.

[Typhlochactas]

That's not exactly true.

It is though, because the first advocated your personal opinion, while the second causes everyone in a theatre to be panicked.

Political beliefs can never endanger public safety?

[Scholencia]

Look, every religion is bad. There is no differences between them.

In fact, the Bible is though as a literal work in many schools through Europe but in other hand the Quran not. And it isnt fair.

No its not. Europe is the most militantly secular place on earth, save maybe China or North Korea.

Yes, it is do. it is though not as religion book but as a[url]piece of Literature[/url].

[New Sapienta]

It is though, because the first advocated your personal opinion, while the second causes everyone in a theatre to be panicked.

Political beliefs can never endanger public safety?

Only when enforced, but unless someone is in power to enforce it, they do not.

[Scholencia]

Look, every religion is bad. There is no differences between them.

In fact, the Bible is though as a literal work in many schools through Europe but in other hand the Quran not. And it isnt fair.

Under Sharia law, Muslims are allowed to kill apostates (Muslims who leave Islam). Do you want Muslims killing apostates in Europe?

Ok, but so is in Christianity the case. And yet in some parts of Europe christian crosses are tolerated in public. That is why,in my opinion, we could try a experiment with sharia in some places where is the presence of a muslim community. It doesnt mean that something will fo wrong. I mean, Breivik even made a terror attacked in a secular country, a place where a religious attack would be at least expected.

[Typhlochactas]

Political beliefs can never endanger public safety?

Only when enforced, but unless someone is in power to enforce it, they do not.

Imagine if President Obama said ''I believe that Muhammad is a sick paedophile who put his dick up in little girls''.

You don't see any way that could endanger public safety?

[North Calaveras]

Under Sharia law, Muslims are allowed to kill apostates (Muslims who leave Islam). Do you want Muslims killing apostates in Europe?

Ok, but so is in Christianity the case. And yet in some parts of Europe christian crosses are tolerated in public.

Christians aren't really known for going around killing unbelievers anymore(save for maybe in africa)

[Typhlochactas]

Ok, but so is in Christianity the case. And yet in some parts of Europe christian crosses are tolerated in public.

Christians aren't really known for going around killing unbelievers anymore(save for maybe in africa)

Only because the country you live in is filled with Christians.

[New Sapienta]

Only when enforced, but unless someone is in power to enforce it, they do not.

Imagine if President Obama said ''I believe that Muhammad is a sick paedophile who put his dick up in little girls''.

You don't see any way that could endanger public safety?

It can, but his view doesn't deserve to be censored, since he's not the one that would be bombing buildings.

Honestly, half of the opinions on NSG should be censored by your standards.

[Typhlochactas]

Imagine if President Obama said ''I believe that Muhammad is a sick paedophile who put his dick up in little girls''.

You don't see any way that could endanger public safety?

It can, but his view doesn't deserve to be censored, since he's not the one that would be bombing buildings.

Honestly, half of the opinions on NSG should be censored by your standards.

Who said it should be censored? Where? Where did I say that?

My point was not an example of something I believe should be censored. It was an example of a comment that would endanger public safety, which pretty much tears down the whole ''political beliefs cannot endanger public safety'' statement.

[New Sapienta]

It can, but his view doesn't deserve to be censored, since he's not the one that would be bombing buildings.

Honestly, half of the opinions on NSG should be censored by your standards.

Who said it should be censored? Where? Where did I say that?

My point was not an example of something I believe should be censored. It was an example of a comment that would endanger public safety, which pretty much tears down the whole ''political beliefs cannot endanger public safety'' statement.

I never said they can't be.

And you did say people with certain opinions should be arrested.

[North Calaveras]

i loved when obama and the adminstration said that Osama wasn't a real muslim but then they went on to say showing picturing of his body might anger the muslim world bwahahaha.

[New Sapienta]

i loved when obama and the adminstration said that Osama wasn't a real muslim but then they went on to say showing picturing of his body might anger the muslim world bwahahaha.

Because it would?

[North Calaveras]

i loved when obama and the adminstration said that Osama wasn't a real muslim but then they went on to say showing picturing of his body might anger the muslim world bwahahaha.

Because it would?

but i thought he wasn't a real muslim and the majority of muslims are moderates?

[The Black Forrest]

Because it would?

but i thought he wasn't a real muslim and the majority of muslims are moderates?

So the majority are fanatics?