Should Muslims be banned from buying alcohol?

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

"Western" has more to do with modern culture and values than location or race. Australia and Japan are considered "West" and the South American banana republics aren't.

Now when it comes to South America that is a little tricky. I mean Argentina seems pretty western (despite their obsession with being edgy toward the UK over the Falklands). I mean Argentina for a relatively long time had a mostly stable government (compared to certain other countries).

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

>half-elven paladin
>half-elven
>elven

ELVES GET OUT

Make us.

Can't. EU won't let us kick you out, because that'd be true racism.

[Neutraligon]

I would claim that Medieval ages would have not been Western in the modern sense. Germany during WW 2 is a mix but I would say it was not a Western Nation during that time. That especially holds for when it fell and was divided between the Soviet Union and the rest of Europe, since the Soviet union did not have those freedoms and rule of law.

I am not redefining, I am using the normal definition. Western has very little to do with geography or race, it has to do with a particular style of freedoms and rule of law, which is why Australia, which on maps is in the East is considered Western, while South America and most of Africa and Asia are not. (Not sure when it comes to Japan). No whether you are in a Western country is dependent not on location (as shown by Australia) but rather as to the type of laws implemented. History is important, in that most Western Nations are based on nations that went through the Enlightenment.

Australia didn't go through the Enlightenment though...

In any event, the label of Western also can't be dependant on politics alone. Because I am fairly certain that even if tomorrow China became a France-stye democracy with a Chinese constitution that is a carbon copy of the French constitution; I am still fairly sure they wouldn't become a Western nation. The word Western is quite simply, too heavily charged with implications of race and history. I would say it can't be attached or detached with any amount of ease.

So whether or not we adopt this alcohol proposal tomorrow, no jurisdiction is in foreseeable danger of losing its status as being Western if its already located in a part of the world considered Western.

It did, in the fact that the people who went to live there had already been through at least part of the enlightenment. As much as criminals can at least. I would disagree as long as the country actually followed the rule of law and allowed those freedoms. I would claim it is a Western nation. And I would disagree, should a nation give up what makes the Western nations a Western nation (namelt the freedoms I mentioned and rule of law), they indeed would lose that status as a Western nation.

[The Two Jerseys]

Source by Force but only if you're Norse, you Horse.

Germany needs to ban alcohol if it wants to prevent further sexual violence and to help North African migrants integrate into society, a Muslim pressure group has claimed.
Commenting on the Cologne sex-attack controversy, MuslimStern, which has 20,000 followers on Facebook, said its mission was to 'highlight the way the media was using the incidents to promote racism against minorities'.
The group complained that the female victims had brought the unwanted attention to themselves by dressing in a manner that North African men were not accustomed to.

The group claimed: 'You cannot expect to chuck a naked antelope in front of a lion and not expect it to react. It is mind boggling that with so much time spent teaching children about sex at school, they completely forget to pass on this basic biological fact.'
As a consequence of the attacks, they urged the German government to introduce a ban across the country on the consumption of alcohol.
The group also blamed women for getting attacked by inciting the young men.
...
Cont.

Either this is a false-flag operation by a neo-Nazi group, or this Muslim advocacy group really sucks at their job.

[Mahdistan]

You know, I don't think it's a half-bad idea. The best way to deal with the crisis is to set off the migrant population, none of this integration business. This way, shariah can be enforced among the migrants and not affect the locals. Banning alcohol would be but a single step towards a self-governing migrant population, which can be continued until the crisis ends, and they return home.

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

You know, I don't think it's a half-bad idea. The best way to deal with the crisis is to set off the migrant population, none of this integration business. This way, shariah can be enforced among the migrants and not affect the locals. Banning alcohol would be but a single step towards a self-governing migrant population, which can be continued until the crisis ends, and they return home.

I agree.

[Neutraligon]

You know, I don't think it's a half-bad idea. The best way to deal with the crisis is to set off the migrant population, none of this integration business. This way, shariah can be enforced among the migrants and not affect the locals. Banning alcohol would be but a single step towards a self-governing migrant population, which can be continued until the crisis ends, and they return home.

SO again why should the government be allowed to force people to obey the dictates of their religion should they not wish to. You are giving the government too much power.

[Infected Mushroom]

Australia didn't go through the Enlightenment though...

In any event, the label of Western also can't be dependant on politics alone. Because I am fairly certain that even if tomorrow China became a France-stye democracy with a Chinese constitution that is a carbon copy of the French constitution; I am still fairly sure they wouldn't become a Western nation. The word Western is quite simply, too heavily charged with implications of race and history. I would say it can't be attached or detached with any amount of ease.

So whether or not we adopt this alcohol proposal tomorrow, no jurisdiction is in foreseeable danger of losing its status as being Western if its already located in a part of the world considered Western.

It did, in the fact that the people who went to live there had already been through at least part of the enlightenment. I would disagree as long as the country actually followed the rule of law and allowed those freedoms. I would claim it is a Western nation. And I would disagree, should a nation give up what makes the Western nations a Western nation (namelt the freedoms I mentioned and rule of law), they indeed would lose that status as a Western nation.

So you must take part in the Enlightenment (or at least your immediate ancestors)?

Even if we accept that to become a Western nation you need 1. historical participation in the Enlightenment 2. effective and consistent rule of law and 3. some form of constitutional enshrinement (even if the constitution is unwritten, like say with the UK) of all the ''essential'' ''Western'' freedoms (let's say, everything substantive in the US constitution and bill of rights)... it still doesn't follow logically that we are operating on a continuous re-qualification system. That is to say, it could still be single entry.

Two scenarios.

A. Once you meet conditions 1-3 you become Western and you remain Western ONLY IF you maintain the three conditions.
B. Once you meet conditions 1-3 you become Western and you unconditionally remain Western because you would have acquired all the historical credibility you ever need

We don't know which one it is. But I would say its more like B because no one has ever argued that Germany stopped being ''Western'' in World War II or that the Confederacy did not exist in the West.

Then there's the internal inconsistency with the criteria with respect to the three points. Let's just take the USA for example (although we could also easily look at France or Spain or Germany etc). If you follow pattern A then you run into a problem because the USA was considered Western long before it had achieved all three conditions. The rule of law arguably wasn't present even in the 1950s because of the Jim Crow actions. You also have to attach a rather arbitrary standard to what you consider ''acceptable enshrinement'' of the ''Western'' freedoms. For much of history for example, women were not allowed to vote and there were slaves (pretty blatant violations of so called ''Western'' freedoms). Yet we would consider those countries even in those time period to be Western. We don't say... ''Oh the USA only became Western in the 1960s after the Civl Rights Movement (or insert any other theoretical marker)'' and we don't go ''Germany stopped being Western for a time period in the 1940s; France temporarily lapsed in and out during [insert period]''

The whole thing is contorted and theoretically unworkable

I'd say it looks more like a variation of B but with a race and historical dimension being emphasised... its more like a single entry and no exit system. Once a country is considered ''Western,'' it never stops being Western...

[Infected Mushroom]

on the other hand if its simply historical (were you or were you not part of the Enlightenment, were your ancestors part of it or not?) then it would be more consistent...

except in that scenario, no country is ever in danger of losing its Western status. History remains the same, what is done is done, regardless of how we move forward

[Conserative Morality]

Fuck no. Morons can say stupid shit all they want. It shouldn't affect policy.

[Mahdistan]

You know, I don't think it's a half-bad idea. The best way to deal with the crisis is to set off the migrant population, none of this integration business. This way, shariah can be enforced among the migrants and not affect the locals. Banning alcohol would be but a single step towards a self-governing migrant population, which can be continued until the crisis ends, and they return home.

SO again why should the government be allowed to force people to obey the dictates of their religion should they not wish to. You are giving the government too much power.

Well I believe I've misused terms; refugees should be put under these restrictions. A refugee could reach out and get alcohol, but at that point, they should be classified as a migrant and made to integrate. It should be an all or nothing situation; either they follow shariah and be restricted from certain things the government could give, or break away and henceforth be regarded as a migrant, and therefor not be entitled to the benefits which a refugee would be given.

[Greater North American Union]

>half-elven paladin
>half-elven
>elven

ELVES GET OUT

Make us.

Let me get my halberd.

[Camelza]

Filthy half-breed! Auri-el looks down upon you, looks down and laughs from his mountain!

Come at me, bro! *readies the Holy Avenger Heavy Drinking Bastard Sword*

*drinks health-fortifying distilled elf tears and skooma cocktail*

+35% health
+45% damage orientation
+20% willpower

*casts a bottomless pit*
"By all that is pure! ..hic ...I shall purge you from my sight, mongrel! ...hic"
*trips and falls down the bottomless pit*

They wonder why several countries are openly against Muslim immigration.

No, you cannot move into a country and then demand they ban their culture.

This group does not represent all muslim immigrants. So it is wrong to judge (and ban) all muslim immigrants based on just one group's extreme opinions and suggestions.

[Yaramaqui]

I do not think so. Religious beliefs should not really change the general policy. If they are true adherents to the laws and principles of Islam, then they will not consume or purchase alcohol. In Muslim countries where alcohol is prohibited, it is more understandable but in my opinion it should not be so for a country like the United States, but in general, I generally do not pay attention to such matters.

[Neutraligon]

SO again why should the government be allowed to force people to obey the dictates of their religion should they not wish to. You are giving the government too much power.

Well I believe I've misused terms; refugees should be put under these restrictions. A refugee could reach out and get alcohol, but at that point, they should be classified as a migrant and made to integrate. It should be an all or nothing situation; either they follow shariah and be restricted from certain things the government could give, or break away and henceforth be regarded as a migrant, and therefor not be entitled to the benefits which a refugee would be given.

How does a refuge getting alcohol make them less of a refugee. Remember they are running from shariah law. Why should the govenrment be allowed to force people to follow a particular religion. Again why are yo giving them so much power. Tell me should Christians be forced to give up all possessions?

[The Conez Imperium]

Your title has little relation to your argument you posted. If you want to voice your opinion please do but I am dumbfounded as to why we use this article to give your OP some more coherence. Why the jump from total ban of alcohol to just a ban on Muslims?

As a consequence of the attacks, they urged the German government to introduce a ban across the country on the consumption of alcohol.

[Genivaria]

Come at me, bro! *readies the Holy Avenger Heavy Drinking Bastard Sword*

*drinks health-fortifying distilled elf tears and skooma cocktail*

+35% health
+45% damage orientation
+20% willpower

*casts a bottomless pit*
"By all that is pure! ..hic ...I shall purge you from my sight, mongrel! ...hic"
*trips and falls down the bottomless pit*

They wonder why several countries are openly against Muslim immigration.

No, you cannot move into a country and then demand they ban their culture.

This group does not represent all muslim immigrants. So it is wrong to judge (and ban) all muslim immigrants based on just one group's extreme opinions and suggestions.

It would be like trying to force all Christians to abide by the 'morals' of the Family Research Council and 700 Club....which would be hilarious actually.

[Baltenstein]

SO again why should the government be allowed to force people to obey the dictates of their religion should they not wish to. You are giving the government too much power.

Well I believe I've misused terms; refugees should be put under these restrictions. A refugee could reach out and get alcohol, but at that point, they should be classified as a migrant and made to integrate. It should be an all or nothing situation; either they follow shariah and be restricted from certain things the government could give, or break away and henceforth be regarded as a migrant, and therefor not be entitled to the benefits which a refugee would be given.

Alternatively, we could stay away from this "parallel legal system" bullshit you're proposing.

[The Alma Mater]

Or it's not the alcohol and the actions of these people falls on them alone. That maybe when they compare women to naked antelope and that it is evidence of a wider disregard of women and women's rights?

Well no - they are not insulting women, they are insulting muslims by implying muslims are nothing but brainless animals acting on instinct, with no selfcontrol at all.

[Risottia]

Make us.

Can't. EU won't let us kick you out, because that'd be true racism.

We brought drows along exactly to have a DOUBLE race card to play.

[Baltenstein]

Or it's not the alcohol and the actions of these people falls on them alone. That maybe when they compare women to naked antelope and that it is evidence of a wider disregard of women and women's rights?

Well no - they are not insulting women, they are insulting muslims by implying muslims are nothing but brainless animals acting on instinct, with no selfcontrol at all.

Let's be fair, they're not insulting Muslim men exclusively but men in general.

[NationStates by Max Bary]

Tbh "foreigners rape our women" is a really old cliche and I think it's xenophobic and even racist. They said it about blacks during slavery, Donald Trump said it about Mexicans and now it's Muslim immigrants in Europe.
It's seems to be more often fueled by sensationalist far right pundits than actual studies or anything.
Furthermore banning alcohol would only be giving into what islamist drunkard rapists that really do exist. Millions enjoy alcohol every year without raping so why let rapists further spoil our fun?

[The Alma Mater]

Tbh "foreigners rape our women" is a really old cliche and I think it's xenophobic and even racist. They said it about blacks during slavery, Donald Trump said it about Mexicans and now it's Muslim immigrants in Europe.

Do note however that in this case it is *muslims* saying that muslims are animals, unable to not rape.

[Ayreonia]

Tbh "foreigners rape our women" is a really old cliche and I think it's xenophobic and even racist. They said it about blacks during slavery, Donald Trump said it about Mexicans and now it's Muslim immigrants in Europe.

Yet that's exactly what this "Muslim pressure group" is saying.

[NationStates by Max Bary]

Tbh "foreigners rape our women" is a really old cliche and I think it's xenophobic and even racist. They said it about blacks during slavery, Donald Trump said it about Mexicans and now it's Muslim immigrants in Europe.

Do note however that in this case it is *muslims* saying that muslims are animals, unable to not rape.

And this somehow validifies the claim? Donald Trump has made appeals to having Mexicans on his side, in history I'm sure there has been plenty of black and jewish folks willing to discriminate against their own kind, for example this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Burros . If you ask Muslims among the general public "can you control yourself not to rape" it's a resounding yes and we should not let a minority of extremist idiots violate them.