-
Posts
-
Why would it be irrational and paranoid to know that I am a suspect if my parents or grandparents were Muslims? Why would it be irrational and paranoid to think that regarding Islam as a force of evil, so that immigration form Islamic countries is forbidden, that I would be a suspect as a Muslim? It strikes me as a very rational response.
Its irrational to fear something that is specifically designed not to target you. If you are a British citizen then you are not effected by immigration bans.
I’m not a Muslim, of course, I find Islam deeply unattractive. The point is that I tolerate Islam, and find the Muslims I have met to be really nice people.
I don’t really like to use anecdotal evidence, its not very good practice. I know many muslims who are nice, I have also met ones that have tried to physically attack me and my girlfriend on sight for not wearing a hijab.
Radical Islam cannot be tolerated – they’re the ones involved in a reconquista – you have to be a bit paranoid to think Islam as a whole is. That ended in 1492 (well more like 1683 at the gates of Vienna).
ISIS?
Saudi Arabia?
Qatar?The same thinking would see Catholics as murderous killers because of twhat happened in ulster in the 1641 massacres.
Isn’t really comparable to hundreds of years of oppression and murder of pagans and christians under islamic caliphates.
This is the essential argument you haven’t answered, drac. You make assertions, but you haven’t answered it. Islam is a faith, practised by Muslims. In the political terms you’re talking about, they can’t be differentiated in the way you do. You rightly say that Muslims (well I assume most) don’t practise it in full. That’s fine by me. It’s up to them. But then you say Islam is awful. But if it’s awful, then Muslims who practise part of it are also awful.
I have been very clear on this. Muslims who practice the aweful parts of Islam are aweful. Muslims who do not are not aweful. The immigration ban I proposed doesn’t effect just muslims either, it also effects atheists, christians and hindus in those countries equally as much.
However, what you have not answered is how you restrict the spread of ‘radical’ Islam without doing this.
The argument is toleration. Muslims and you as a christian atheist vampire (lol) don’t see eye-to-eye. Fair enough. Live with one another. As long as Muslims live with us, and don’t try to forcibly change us, I’m happy.
I don’t tollerate murder or the sexual assault of children. Which happen at a disprotionately high rate in areas surrounding Islamic enclaves.
But they (the islamists) don’t want to live with us, they segregate themselves into enclaves. And push for legal acknowlagement of Sharia law.
Are you really so naive as to the existance of these things?
I don’t confuse it at all, in one breathe you claim to be a liberal and in the next breathe deny others, the liberalism, you support. You are certainly not “centre” left or “progressive” and your ideology is far right. Based solely on what you type on here of course. In my opinion.
Foreign nationals are not entilted to enjoy the benifits of a liberal nation, and can be refused entry. This is a liberal position.
I never claimed to be center-left, I reject progressive values entirely.
1 member liked this post.
A ‘libertarian’ position yes, which you deny, and deny strongly, of course you could prove me wrong, which you also deny. You are not a liberal, whatever translation, you put on it.
A ‘libertarian’ position yes, which you deny, and deny strongly, of course you could prove me wrong, which you also deny. You are not a liberal, whatever translation, you put on it.
Libertarian is an American variation on liberalism, it is further to the right in terms of ecconomic policies. I’m not a libertarian though, I don’t think privatising transport infrastructure or law enforcement is a good idea.
A ‘libertarian’ position yes, which you deny, and deny strongly, of course you could prove me wrong, which you also deny. You are not a liberal, whatever translation, you put on it.
Libertarian is an American variation on liberalism, it is further to the right in terms of ecconomic policies. I’m not a libertarian though, I don’t think privatising transport infrastructure or law enforcement is a good idea.
Neither do “libertarians”, they do though, agree with your views on immigration, unlike liberals, who don’t. Are you going to mess around before revealing what you are truly all about?
Neither do “libertarians”, they do though, agree with your views on immigration, unlike liberals, who don’t.
The anarcho-capitalist branch of libertarianism certainly does, and they seem to be the largest voting block for political groups like the US Libertarian party in my experience.
I was able to find one libertarian party in the UK, who seem to adopt a minarchist rather than an anarchist approach, but is still focused on reducing the power of government.
Liberalism is about giving universal rights and protections to the citizens of its nation, which can’t happen without government regulation of certain things. This contrasts with progressivism, which divides people into classes, and gives each of those classes seperate rights rather than to the individual people. An example of this would be funding for domestic abuse shelters, with a progressive policy domestic abuse is viewed as a female issue, so (virtually) all funding is given shelters that only accept women. Male victims of abuse are not given the same protections under this system, which I am against.
Are you going to mess around before revealing what you are truly all about?
I don’t really understand why you think I am trying to hide some kind of secret agenda.
Edit:
I found the UK Libertarian party’s policy on immigration, there are two quotes that are relevent: “In parallel, we will establish bilateral agreements with countries to enable free flows of people” and “Longer term, and in conjunction with the shrinking of our unsustainable current Welfare System, we are committed to pursuing an open borders policy towards those who would wish to come to the United Kingdom in order to contribute to our economy and peaceful shores“.This is pretty much the oposite of what I have proposed in this thread.
I could well be wrong *smiles innocently* but don’t “liberals” (true liberals) believe in free movement of labor. Unless of course they are Muslim, then supposedly a different set of rules kick in.
A ‘libertarian’ position yes, which you deny, and deny strongly, of course you could prove me wrong, which you also deny. You are not a liberal, whatever translation, you put on it.
Libertarian is an American variation on liberalism, it is further to the right in terms of ecconomic policies. I’m not a libertarian though, I don’t think privatising transport infrastructure or law enforcement is a good idea.
Neither do “libertarians”, they do though, agree with your views on immigration, unlike liberals, who don’t. Are you going to mess around before revealing what you are truly all about?
I have asked her before…..
Its about respect innit but get what ur sayin .. chill in da hood draculina and dont get so worked up innit. Peace
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOB6UDC-67w
Seems like the BBC is starting to grow a spine.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!