Good link! Always thought it made little sense, and people also tend to omit "essential" which turns it into an absurdity.
Gun shots outside Parliament: Police shoot assailant following car attack on Westminster Bridge
- Thread starter Untied
- Start date
Context context context
To frantically try to escape from a crowded theater is a perfectly reasonable action when somebody shouts 'fire'. To suffer a mental breakdown because someone you don't know insults some dead politician/cult leader from the 6th Century is totally unreasonable.
I don't disagree. That is why I tried to avoid the word poverty in particular. I prefer to use lower life standards to refer to the things you have mentioned. That is why I also wrote in another post "when people feel desperate and insecure, or at least when they think they are". I agree that it's not a black and white link, if it was, it would be a much easier issue. It is however the status of Islam as a group that is creating this feeling of desperation and insecurity. History and politics are both definitely big factors as well. I know a lot of the people who have links to the Muslim world who simply feel that their dictators who have been raping them figuratively and in some cases literally, were funded and aided by the West for example. To these people, they just feel the West are incredibly hypocritical to take the moral high ground when it comes to human right issues. Of course this is not fair but it all ties in to how we look at each other in terms of groups and the way our group is treated contributes to shape our world view. In any case, my entire point is that the ideology itself whatever it is is never the heart of the problem, it is the existence of an environment that makes people ready to embrace it unquestionably.
You may think religion is silly and not believe in God. Thats your choice and prerogative. Good luck to you.
Others have equal choice and choose to believe in God and the books administered on his behalf. Your mockery wont change that - you're neither skilful enough as debater nor soulful enough a poster to inspire that.
So please do continue to rant and obfuscate but don't expect many to take you seriously. I've expressed my opinions and you have your's. You can stop trolling me now.
Last edited:
You'll be surprised to know there many thriving gay communities in the Muslim world. Go Google instances of apostates being executed in Muslim countries. You'll be hard pressed to find many instances. If anything, the West has killed persecuted gays and apostates until very recently.
You're being disrespectful there towards Muslims. You and I may not share their beliefs but we are both aware of the importance of Muhammad to Muslim people and that should be respected. Insulting Muhammad is idiotic and is only done to wind people up and cause trouble.
Interesting! Also interesting POV you also have!I'm Muslim bro, not betting
Why and where do you think the Qu'ran will be banned?
Let's get back to discussing today's dreadful events.
What utter tripe. Should we not joke about North Korea's Dear Leader also? After all, he is as revered as anyone by North Koreans. You can't make a political figure immune from criticism and ridicule just because he is respected by a group of people.
What you're essentially suggesting here is that Muslims are unable to control their own actions under provocation. In fact, history proves you wrong. Famously in Islamic Spain, there was a period when Christians hoping to achieve martyrdom would burst into mosques during the Friday prayers and insult Muhammad, hoping to suffer death at the hands of an angry mob. Although some of these Christians did achieve their wish, the civilization of Muslim Spain during that period was mature and self-confident enough to avoid reacting, and an edict from the sultan ordered that these Christians be left alone. And in fact, depictions and even mockery of Muhammad have at certain times in history been a feature of Islamic civilization. Which shows that it is not the fact of the cartoons themselves that drives the reaction, but rather the generally shitty conditions which myself and @Theonas have just discussed above.
(good post there btw @Theonas, I don't object to any of it).
You're both talking a lot of sense but there's a unique challenge in facing down a violent ideology which promises martyrdom and rewards in the afterlife to anyone who loses their life fighting what is perceived as a holy war. Obviously it's a perversion of what the religion means to the vast majority of people who share the same faith but the problem is deeper and more complex than disenfranchised people trying to even the playing field. The nature of their ideology means compromise is out of the question. How do you try and reason with that sort of extremism?
It has been discussed a lot on internet. It was one of Wilders election manifesto to ban the Qur'an. However, they'd have to kill all those who have memorised, ban internet, and burn billions of copies. If anything, history has proved Muslims thrive most when under pressure.
Is he though? I'd say most hate him and live in constant fear but anyway. I didn't say that Muhammad should be immune from any critcism but the fact is that he is a vital part of the Islamic faith and people should not blatantly disrespect him for no apparent reason.
The death toll is now up to 5.
A big part of the tragedy of these sort of attacks that often does not receive the attention it deserves is the number of people who are maimed/disfigured or suffer terrible long term injuries. No doubt there have been some horrific injuries.
A big part of the tragedy of these sort of attacks that often does not receive the attention it deserves is the number of people who are maimed/disfigured or suffer terrible long term injuries. No doubt there have been some horrific injuries.
Thank you for your empathy.
Generally speaking, I try my best not to emotionally injure anyone, no matter how much I disagree with them. It seems to me that the real advocators of Free Speech are those who want to inspire hatred on some level.
Its already proven that 99.99% of Muslims who hated the inflammatory journalism towards prophet Muhammed (pbuh) did not react with violence BUT instead expressed their dissent through legal forms of protest. I would question the mental health of those Muslims who did react violently all the Muslims I know are very capable of handling emotional injury without being violent.
However, I don't like the manipulative intent of such journalism and think society would be better if it were banned.
(As an aside, it seems perfectly fine to beat up another man because he says something inflammatory about your football team!)
Just google "Channel 4 London" and you'll get several angles on it. I also didn't know.
Tiny non-sensationalist summary: Incorrectly accused someone of something.
I really don't think it is possible. When someone is prepared to blow themselves and many innocents up in the belief he/she will get into heaven, then that person is not going to listen to reason.
I'll disrespect who I like. The Quran/Sunnah may justify a violent attack on me for doing so, but for the time being I'll take my chances despite people like you believing you have the right to control my words/thoughts.
I don't understand why this is such a difficult subject to comprehend!
One of the major signs of qiamat is that no physical copy of the Koran will remain on earth. Now you can either take that to mean that everything in future will be online and cloud based or you can be a paranoid pessimist like me and think along the lines of a world ban.
My main reasoning other than that though is the current climate of intolerance and bigotry that prevails humanity.
Is there any proof yet that the attacker was a Muslim? If there isn't...why the derailment?
It's a slippery slope if you start banning things like that, however I think people should have the common sense and decency to just be respectful of Muhammad because of what he means to so many people, regardless of their own beliefs. I agree that such journalism is manipulative and basically just to provoke a reaction, which sadly as we all know happened in Paris.
Ditto. The heart of this as I mentioned in a previous post is our consistent need to deny how our actions, behaviour and culture are largely shaped by the environment around us. This is a scary notion to many as it implies the lack of control, that the way we are is simply the result of random selection, a genetic accident and that free will is overrated, if not non-existent. Once we rebel against those scary thoughts, we start to interpret the world in easy digestible notions of right and wrong, personal responsibility, fairness, justice, etc. Poetic notions that make the world a much simpler place to understand and rule. One can argue it is essential for our sanity to simplify the world in those terms in order to survive, but unfortunately, it also means we more often than not, take short cuts when tackling difficult and uncomfortable subjects.
There's a fine line between advocating violence and demonising groups of people that incites violence.
Farage and Trump certainly hold responsibility for the increases in hate crimes which resulted from their rhetoric.
That doesn't mean you should though...
I agree with this but...you've just compared them to people trying to escape a burning theatre!!!
What are you talking about?
That's what scares me. We both live on an island that's deeply scarred by religious extremists and anger over a colonial past but it's never felt as nihilist and hopeless as this jihadist threat. Deep down, you always assume that reason will prevail. Eventually.
Typically, started when Rednev entered the thread.
Yeah of course, if you're going to ban people having an opinion on something then you're into dangerous territory there, but what I'm saying is that non-Muslims should have the common sense and decency to just be respectful, as the old saying goes, if you have nothing nice to say then don't say anything.
Good point but when you hear the sound of hooves it's more likely to be horses than zebras. All available evidence points towards this being another Nice/Berlin atrocity. I'd be amazed if it turns out any different.
Actually, I was responding to a post by sammsky which attempted to make a case for banning cartoons.
Apparently this image led folks to believe him to be a (professing) Muslim...
This is a private forum.
You can go disrespect on other forums. We have a right to ban people who we feel will be a detriment to this forum.
This is a good point indeed. Who cares if it's right or wrong as though freedom of speech can ever be defined in those terms anyway. I personally think it's crazy to be offended over something like that but it if it does indeed offend someone, why not just avoid it? The amazing thing to me is that most of us use this very simple principle in our face to face interactions. If I am at a party and over heard someone was overly sensitive about a crazy issue, I would simply avoid it so we can have a nice time instead if instigating to make a point. I think most of us would do the same from my experience, change the context to an us vs them scenario and people suddenly start to look for needless confrontation. We are talking about people whose lives are by average so much worse than those who want to confront them and "make a point", can't they just let them have this understandable tantrum?
Quite the turnaround from your opening gambit on this topic.
Hobby-horses too, mate.
Ours is on rockers. Although my daughter does make a clip clop sound when she uses it.
