MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:06 pm

Belinda wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:03 pm
Yes, I guess so-called moderate Muslims put the laws of their nation first.
Would that it were that easy.
But modern slavery, oppression of women, denial of education, arranging child brides, and female circumcision are not particularly Islamic.
These things have a 1,400 year history in Islamic cultures, one that continues even today. No other group can compare to the commitment --long term, durable and demonstrated -- of the conservative Islamists.

For example, much is made of the North American slave trade. But that lasted less than 300 years, and ended well over 100 years ago. The trans-Saharan slave trade is older, much bigger, more lethal and continues even now. Yet you never hear about the trans-Saharan slave trade because of its association with Islam. It's "Islamophobic" even to mention the extreme abuses that go on in Islamic lands.
Eliminating religious and non-religious objectors is what dictators of all sects and none routinely do.
How many times have the Mennonites, the Quakers, the Anabaptists, or the Zoroastrians done this? Where are the Bahai, Rastafarian or Unitarian pogroms and purges? You won't find any. Not all religions are equal.
I'd not like to be any sort of religionist but if I had to choose one of them I'd choose C of E or some other form of mild liberal Protestantism.
Hmmm...then you know that C of E or mild liberal Protestantism are not violent sects. But how can you reconcile your antipathy to violence and oppression with advocacy of Islam? Nothing in Islamic history justifies the hope that Islam will suddenly turn pacifistic. It's certainly not been that so far.

uwot
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by uwot » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:21 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:06 pm
These things have a 1,400 year history in Islamic cultures, one that continues even today. No other group can compare to the commitment --long term, durable and demonstrated -- of the conservative Islamists.
Mr Can, there is a book called The Bible, which you clearly haven't read. Bits of it are something in the order of 2500 years old. In it you can find passages that detail exactly who Christians can enslave and how they should treat them.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1750
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by FlashDangerpants » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:29 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:10 pm
I don't think you will find much sympathy in the Supreme Court for the view that the constitution is non-binding in any way.
I would hope not.

But then, how has gun ownership become at all controversial, if the founding documents are so highly secured? And, for that matter, how has the idea of state's rights being submerged in a general vote become discussable? It seems many Americans are no longer clear on what is constitutionally guaranteed to them, and what the rationale for it was. So perhaps it's time for a refresher on that.
The second is not well worded and the world of firearms has changed a lot since it was written and weaponry consisted of flintlocks and canons. There's a great deal of scope both to interpret it and for a majority of Americans to want it rethought given how much danger it subjects them to.

There's much less scope for freedom to excercise their religious conscience becoming a problem, and no way at all for Sharia to become part of American law. The due process articles I referenced before are still rigtht there, also making Sharia impossible.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:29 pm
You are telling us that the 1st amendment of the US constitution needs amending so that people already guaranteed that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof feel they have freedom of religion?
Feelings are irrelevant. Facts matter. What they need is to be clear that there is a non-negotiable barrier to Sharia. Conservative Muslims most certainly believe that our freedoms are erodible from within, and that Sharia can be brought into play at least locally, if not yet nationally. How else can they secure universal dar-el-Salaam, and eliminate dar-al-Harb?
Can you think of any other religion in which there is a belief that some holy bloke will return to Earth at the battle before judgment day and spread the word of God universally? Any other religion where preacher types stand in some sort of pulpit and tell their congregation how to vote, while retaining tax exemptions?

Sharia cannot be brought into play locally except in the form that you already admitted you wouldn't curtail. I don't know how to make you understand this, the constitution of ANY country applies in ALL situations within that country. There is no local right to infringe ANY constitutionally guaranteed right of a citizen or lawful resident. That's true in Canada and Britian and America as well.

If somebody is too ignorant to understand that, don't change constitutions to thwart the bigotry of the one, or negate the bigotry of some herd of idiots. Tell people what the truth is and let them learn to live with it.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:29 pm
Unless they give up the hope of world domination in the name of Islam, they're going to have to undermine those constitutional guarantees. And they've made some considerable inroads in achieving that, in many Western nations. There are "no go" areas in many cities now, where de facto Sharia enforcers wander the streets. And the governments do nothing to prevent it.
The last person who told me about these no go zones was Daschund. He named one right down the road from where I used to work, and last Friday I was there, drinking beer and eating curry (FYI, drinking beer is not the sort of thing you should do in an actual Sharia law zone). If you have been reading far-right propaganda about no go zones, it was written by people like him, and believed by stupid people.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:29 pm
They know what they are committed to. Our problem is that we don't. We're not sure the constitution is inviolable. In fact, several people in the US have been arrested just for handing out copies of the constitution, :shock: so how secure can American commitment to it be?
That is some remarkable drama queen action. If their constitutional right to free speach was infringed, they will win their lawsuit against the college, and next week all the others who are banned such as the communists and the nazis will stand in the same place handing out their flyers too.

The constitution guarantees citizens certain rights, it does this by providing both the justification and laws to remediate ongoing problems, and the justification and legal methods to punish wrongdoers. The arrest of some protesting students (that IS what they were doing), is not indicative of a constitution being violable. Only if the courts decide that there was no legal justification for restricting free speach under a constitutionally valid law, but that they aren't going to do anything about it because hey, it's just the boring old constitution, would the constitution actually become violable through the action you describe. And at that point, what would be the value in adding some extra clause to said constitution to make Sharia triply invalid rather than merely doubly invalid, given that the constitution no longer guarantees anything in this fantasy of yours?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:47 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:36 pm
The second is not well worded and the world of firearms has changed a lot since it was written and weaponry consisted of flintlocks and canons. There's a great deal of scope both to interpret it and for a majority of Americans to want it rethought given how much danger it subjects them to.
But what you've just conceded is that you think constitutional precepts can be questioned, by referring to their application to new time periods and circumstances. (Not only that, but you didn't address the states-rights problem, which is parallel.)

But if that's true, then why is it impossible to make the same argument for Sharia?
Sharia cannot be brought into play locally except in the form that you already admitted you wouldn't curtail.
I would immediately curtail Sharia zones. Absolutely. It's the first thing I would do, legally.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:29 pm
Unless they give up the hope of world domination in the name of Islam, they're going to have to undermine those constitutional guarantees. And they've made some considerable inroads in achieving that, in many Western nations. There are "no go" areas in many cities now, where de facto Sharia enforcers wander the streets. And the governments do nothing to prevent it.
The last person who told me about these no go zones was Daschund. He named one right down the road from where I used to work, and last Friday I was there, drinking beer and eating curry.
Merely anecdotal. If your area is an exception, it does not argue against the existence of Sharia zones. You can see them on YouTube, even if, unlike me, you haven't travelled to where serious ones exist.

See Islam on its home ground, and you'll realize it's a very different beast from what it shows the West outside Sharia-dominated neighbourhoods.
If their constitutional right to free speach was infringed, they will win their lawsuit against the college, and next week all the others who are banned such as the communists and the nazis will stand in the same place handing out their flyers too.
They used to allow this sort of freedom on college campuses. I remember one Marxist who was on campus every Saturday with a sandwich board, yelling and handing our flyers. He said some incredibly stupid and dishonest things (like telling us that Albania, which was then closed, was a Marxist paradise), but I was in favour of his right to speak. And for the same reason, I would be in favour of allowing Charlie Hebdo to say what it wanted against anybody, even though I found them rude.
The arrest of some protesting students (that IS what they were doing), is not indicative of a constitution being violable.
Of course it is. Unless someone breaks the law, there is no reason to arrest them. And handing our copies of the very constitution that guarantees their right to speak and protest? That's no crime.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1750
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by FlashDangerpants » Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:15 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:47 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:36 pm
The second is not well worded and the world of firearms has changed a lot since it was written and weaponry consisted of flintlocks and canons. There's a great deal of scope both to interpret it and for a majority of Americans to want it rethought given how much danger it subjects them to.
But what you've just conceded is that you think constitutional precepts can be questioned, by referring to their application to new time periods and circumstances. (Not only that, but you didn't address the states-rights problem, which is parallel.)

But if that's true, then why is it impossible to make the same argument for Sharia?
That impossible to answer because you are being too shifty to say which Sharia things you could envisage actually being made into any form of law in America. There's no scope to punish anyone for leaving the faith under American law, there never could be either because of the constitution, but there's nobody to vote for that law to come into effect also. It's absurd to even be discussing it.

Which States Rights issue do you mean? You mentioned something being "discussable" which seems like an application for the first amendment.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:36 pm
Sharia cannot be brought into play locally except in the form that you already admitted you wouldn't curtail.
I would immediately curtail Sharia zones. Absolutely. It's the first thing I would do, legally.
There are no sharia zones. There cannot be any Sharia zones. The constitution does not allow for them.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:36 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:29 pm
Unless they give up the hope of world domination in the name of Islam, they're going to have to undermine those constitutional guarantees. And they've made some considerable inroads in achieving that, in many Western nations. There are "no go" areas in many cities now, where de facto Sharia enforcers wander the streets. And the governments do nothing to prevent it.
The last person who told me about these no go zones was Daschund. He named one right down the road from where I used to work, and last Friday I was there, drinking beer and eating curry.
Merely anecdotal. If your area is an exception, it does not argue against the existence of Sharia zones. You can see them on YouTube, even if, unlike me, you haven't travelled to where serious ones exist.

See Islam on its home ground, and you'll realize it's a very different beast from what it shows the West outside Sharia-dominated neighbourhoods.
Tell me where the no go zones patrolled by Sharia enforcers are.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:36 pm
If their constitutional right to free speach was infringed, they will win their lawsuit against the college, and next week all the others who are banned such as the communists and the nazis will stand in the same place handing out their flyers too.
They used to allow this sort of freedom on college campuses. I remember one Marxist who was on campus every Saturday with a sandwich board, yelling and handing our flyers. He said some incredibly stupid and dishonest things (like telling us that Albania, which was then closed, was a Marxist paradise), but I was in favour of his right to speak. And for the same reason, I would be in favour of allowing Charlie Hebdo to say what it wanted against anybody, even though I found them rude.
The arrest of some protesting students (that IS what they were doing), is not indicative of a constitution being violable.
Of course it is. Unless someone breaks the law, there is no reason to arrest them. And handing our copies of the very constitution that guarantees their right to speak and protest? That's no crime.
That does not address my point at all. If their constitutional right was infringed they will win a law suit. The constitution did not just become negotiable because they were arrested for trespass or whatever, it will be the thing that decides how the lawsuit goes because it is the ultimate arbiter of that sort of thing.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:26 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:15 pm
...you are being too shifty to say which Sharia things you could envisage actually being made into any form of law in America.
Not at all. You can pick a dozen...the outlawing of criticism of Islam (already happening in Canada), the seeking of special status for Islam (the only religion with prayer rooms in public schools), the tyrannization of women...but we were just talking about the establishing of "no-go" zones, which is one obvious one. So there's hardly any "shiftiness" there.

Ad hominem, again.
There's no scope to punish anyone for leaving the faith under American law...
But you've already established that you will criticize the constitution in light of new developments, in the case of the right to bear arms. So there is no reason you can't use exactly the same logic to establish anything contrary to the original constitution.
Which States Rights issue do you mean?

I mean the people who advocate for eliminating the Electoral College, and going with a majority-nationwide vote. The Electoral College was fundamental to ensuring that smaller states, in the original federation, were not swallowed up by the interests of large ones.
There are no sharia zones. There cannot be any Sharia zones. The constitution does not allow for them.
Heh. Then explain why places like Malmo and Lakemba exist. They are unconstitutional in Sweden and Australia too.
That does not address my point at all. If their constitutional right was infringed they will win a law suit.
They shouldn't need one. They should never have been arrested at all. But we'll see if they do.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1750
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by FlashDangerpants » Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:26 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:15 pm
...you are being too shifty to say which Sharia things you could envisage actually being made into any form of law in America.
Not at all. You can pick a dozen...the outlawing of criticism of Islam (already happening in Canada), the seeking of special status for Islam (the only religion with prayer rooms in public schools), the tyrannization of women...but we were just talking about the establishing of "no-go" zones, which is one obvious one. So there's hardly any "shiftiness" there.
You are criticising Islam from Canada. To whom should I report you so that you can face incarceration for this? I assume you are certain that you are actually breaking the law right now.

Prayer rooms? You mean a room where some kids are allowed to store little bits of carpet? That's the slipper slope to the reinstatement of slavery is it?

What tyrannization of women? Are you suggesting that an otherwise unsconstitutional law allowing ladies to be kicked in the private parts would pass Congress only if it were restricted to muslim men doing the kicking or something? There's nobody to vote for that law to come into effect also. It's absurd to even be discussing it.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:26 pm
Ad hominem, again.
I'm begging you to learn what that means. It's making me sad now.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:26 pm
There's no scope to punish anyone for leaving the faith under American law...
But you've already established that you will criticize the constitution in light of new developments, in the case of the right to bear arms. So there is no reason you can't use exactly the same logic to establish anything contrary to the original constitution.
American's still have the right to keep and bear arms. At the time of the writing of that constitution, nobody argued that this included the right keep and bear arms and point them in stranger's faces while shouting "your money or your life". So the right to bear arms has always been limited by circumstantial factors and always should be. All the other stuff comes under the heading of additional circumstantial factors, and is not intended to remove the general constitutional right to keep and bear arms in order to provide for a well regulated militia, even thoughthat concept is long out of date.

There is nothing remotely additional or circumstantial about somehow reinterpreting the constitutional gurarantee of freedom of religion to allow for the beheading of infidels though.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:26 pm
Which States Rights issue do you mean?

I mean the people who advocate for eliminating the Electoral College, and going with a majority-nationwide vote. The Electoral College was fundamental to ensuring that smaller states, in the original federation, were not swallowed up by the interests of large ones.
You realise that the first amendment of the constitution guarantees that they are allowed to discuss that right? So the fact of people having the discussion does not indicate that the constitution is busted at all. The states would have to ratify an ammendment to the constitution to change the electoral college, so again, nothing busted here.

Also, the fix you offered for the problem you are imagining was a change to the constitution, so returning you to that theme of Locke ... the recommendation you are trying to support with the above arguments is implementally irrational on the basis of your own aruments against it having any effect.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:26 pm
There are no sharia zones. There cannot be any Sharia zones. The constitution does not allow for them.
Heh. Then explain why places like Malmo and Lakemba exist. They are unconstitutional in Sweden and Australia too.
Sweden simply wouldn't tolerate a Sharia zone, that's a far-right fiction. https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe ... s-1.767444 the same applies to Australia. https://discoversociety.org/2017/12/06/ ... sanctuary/

These are countries where the police are heavily armed and the pedestrians are not. Can you really imagine that balance of power being the basis for special zones where cops daren't tread and law enforcement is left to gangs of blokes with sticks?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:41 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:16 pm
Prayer rooms? You mean a room where some kids are allowed to store little bits of carpet? That's the slipper slope to the reinstatement of slavery is it?
No. But it's a clear violation of the separation of 'church' and state, so as a constitutionalist, it ought to concern you. Or not, if you're not a real constitutionalist.
It's absurd to even be discussing it.
That's what people say when they don't want something discussed...usually because the scales would go badly against them. Hence, they think it's better not to talk about at all.

But let's talk about women. In a school in my area, the Islamic boys drove out the Islamic girls from the prayer rooms. And why? Because menstruating women are not allowed in prayer rooms. So the boys would sexually harass the girls, and make vile comments about why they weren't able to be there at a given time. Consequently, none of the girls could go to the prayer rooms.

Likewise, the Shia and Sunni Moslems would not have anything to do with one another. They wouldn't even sit in the same area. Boys never sat with girls, and different sects would not work with one another. One girl told me, "They [the Sunnis] say we drink our own urine."

Let's talk about that kind of thing.
But you've already established that you will criticize the constitution in light of new developments, in the case of the right to bear arms. So there is no reason you can't use exactly the same logic to establish anything contrary to the original constitution.
American's still have the right to keep and bear arms.

So far. But there's something that's getting discussed.
There is nothing remotely additional or circumstantial about somehow reinterpreting the constitutional gurarantee of freedom of religion to allow for the beheading of infidels though.
Funny you should mention that. What particular group of people who are in the habit of beheading "infidels" were you referring to? Because I didn't even mention that issue.
Also, the fix you offered for the problem you are imagining was a change to the constitution,

Not at all. It was a reinforcing of an existing principle, one already in the constitution but now being challenged.
Sweden simply wouldn't tolerate a Sharia zone,

Yeah, they do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3wgqh3i1AI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcsG-u2GtZE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqY4Z1fTrMc
These are countries where the police are heavily armed and the pedestrians are not. Can you really imagine that balance of power being the basis for special zones where cops daren't tread and law enforcement is left to gangs of blokes with sticks?
Like Lakemba or London, you mean? You've seen the videos...including CNN, which is pretty Leftist.

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by Belinda » Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Yes, I guess so-called moderate Muslims put the laws of their nation first.
Would that it were that easy.
It seems to happen in Europe and America.If you know of any conspiracies or crimes you should tell the police.

But modern slavery, oppression of women, denial of education, arranging child brides, and female circumcision are not particularly Islamic.
These things have a 1,400 year history in Islamic cultures, one that continues even today. No other group can compare to the commitment --long term, durable and demonstrated -- of the conservative Islamists.

For example, much is made of the North American slave trade. But that lasted less than 300 years, and ended well over 100 years ago. The trans-Saharan slave trade is older, much bigger, more lethal and continues even now. Yet you never hear about the trans-Saharan slave trade because of its association with Islam. It's "Islamophobic" even to mention the extreme abuses that go on in Islamic lands.
True of Islamic nations. Islamism is not Islam.
I don't confuse political correctness with Islamophobia. I condemn modern slavery whoever exploits or enslaves other people. It does seem to be true that domestic slaves are kept by either quite well off individuals from Saudi Arabia, or else by a certain criminal under-class of Europeans.
Eliminating religious and non-religious objectors is what dictators of all sects and none routinely do.
How many times have the Mennonites, the Quakers, the Anabaptists, or the Zoroastrians done this? Where are the Bahai, Rastafarian or Unitarian pogroms and purges? You won't find any. Not all religions are equal.
That's true. However your way to categorise religions is unhelpful. My way to categorise them is to put each sect on a scale with 'extremely authoritarian' at one end and ' extremely liberal' at the other end.
There are a few liberal Muslims e.g. the poet Rumi.

I'd not like to be any sort of religionist but if I had to choose one of them I'd choose C of E or some other form of mild liberal Protestantism.
Hmmm...then you know that C of E or mild liberal Protestantism are not violent sects. But how can you reconcile your antipathy to violence and oppression with advocacy of Islam? Nothing in Islamic history justifies the hope that Islam will suddenly turn pacifistic. It's certainly not been that so far.
I am not an advocate for Islam. I am not an advocate for any religion except perhaps Quakers and Unitarians. I am an advocate for a religion suited tor the 21st century without supernaturalism and with a moral code in which the climate emergency is dealt with prominently.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1750
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by FlashDangerpants » Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:41 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:16 pm
Prayer rooms? You mean a room where some kids are allowed to store little bits of carpet? That's the slipper slope to the reinstatement of slavery is it?
No. But it's a clear violation of the separation of 'church' and state, so as a constitutionalist, it ought to concern you. Or not, if you're not a real constitutionalist.
Constitutionalist? What even is that?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:41 pm
It's absurd to even be discussing it.
That's what people say when they don't want something discussed...usually because the scales would go badly against them. Hence, they think it's better not to talk about at all.
Chopping out the rest of the passage and arguing with the least important sentence is something some lame little man might do because the scales would go badly against him.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:41 pm
But let's talk about women. In a school in my area, the Islamic boys drove out the Islamic girls from the prayer rooms. And why? Because menstruating women are not allowed in prayer rooms. So the boys would sexually harass the girls, and make vile comments about why they weren't able to be there at a given time. Consequently, none of the girls could go to the prayer rooms.

Likewise, the Shia and Sunni Moslems would not have anything to do with one another. They wouldn't even sit in the same area. Boys never sat with girls, and different sects would not work with one another. One girl told me, "They [the Sunnis] say we drink our own urine."

Let's talk about that kind of thing.
Well if I'm opposed to the bigotry you display, then I am obliged to oppose weird children calling each other piss drinkers too. Is this something we should add to a constitution?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:41 pm
But you've already established that you will criticize the constitution in light of new developments, in the case of the right to bear arms. So there is no reason you can't use exactly the same logic to establish anything contrary to the original constitution.
American's still have the right to keep and bear arms.

So far. But there's something that's getting discussed.
Well, again, duh. Must I tell you a second time that the first ammendment definitely says they should be allowed to "dicuss" things, so people discussing stuff can not be unconstitutional.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:41 pm
There is nothing remotely additional or circumstantial about somehow reinterpreting the constitutional gurarantee of freedom of religion to allow for the beheading of infidels though.
Funny you should mention that. What particular group of people who are in the habit of beheading "infidels" were you referring to? Because I didn't even mention that issue.
So what? Why are you evading almost every point I make and then treating something shit like that as a genius ambush?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:41 pm
Also, the fix you offered for the problem you are imagining was a change to the constitution,

Not at all. It was a reinforcing of an existing principle, one already in the constitution but now being challenged.
Explain. What is the thing you think should actually be done? 'Reinforcing a constitutional principle' doesn't really tell us anything.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:41 pm
Sweden simply wouldn't tolerate a Sharia zone,

Yeah, they do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3wgqh3i1AI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcsG-u2GtZE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqY4Z1fTrMc
So in the first video, a man walks into the place where dealers deal drugs with a camera crew and gets fucked off out of it by drug dealers. Then he goes on an insinuation spree and spreads the new Blood Libel which is this thing about muslims being rapists. Your intrepid reporter tells the camera that he has been told by police that they moved a police station to run away from criminals, but is unable to present a police officer to say that, not even with the blurred out face and the faked voice.

In the second video, your supposed no go zone is being patrolled by the police, who arrest a bunch of the people you claim have forced them out of the area. It also says that there is little community support for these patrolling bigots.

In the third video, a notorious right wing troll who announced she was visiting the area ahead of time is intercepted by a cop who wants her not to incite a riot. Again, in an area with cops, which is not what a no go zone is.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:41 pm
These are countries where the police are heavily armed and the pedestrians are not. Can you really imagine that balance of power being the basis for special zones where cops daren't tread and law enforcement is left to gangs of blokes with sticks?
Like Lakemba or London, you mean? You've seen the videos...including CNN, which is pretty Leftist.
The CNN one takes some time to cover alternative angles of a story, if you've reached such a stage that this qualifies as leftist you are more or less irretrievably partisan.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:52 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:38 pm
Constitutionalist? What even is that?
Someone who trusts in the constitution.
Well if I'm opposed to the bigotry you display, then I am obliged to oppose weird children calling each other piss drinkers too. Is this something we should add to a constitution?
Yeah? What is "the bigotry I display"? Criticizing Islam?

Ad hominem again. It doesn't matter who says it: it matters whether or not it's true. Sheesh. You never learn.
Must I tell you a second time that the first ammendment definitely says they should be allowed to "dicuss" things, so people discussing stuff can not be unconstitutional.

Well, then why can't people use the same mechanism to "discuss" making Sharia part of the constitution? If it's all just revisable by new circumstances anyway, as you say.

You can't have it both ways: either the constitution is, or is not merely revisable. If it is, then it's no guaranteed wall against Sharia, in the way you were saying it was.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:41 pm
Funny you should mention that. What particular group of people who are in the habit of beheading "infidels" were you referring to? Because I didn't even mention that issue.
So what? Why are you evading almost every point I make and then treating something shit like that as a genius ambush?
Hey, you brought it up...I didn't. So what group was it you were referring to?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:41 pm
Also, the fix you offered for the problem you are imagining was a change to the constitution,

Not at all. It was a reinforcing of an existing principle, one already in the constitution but now being challenged.
Explain. What is the thing you think should actually be done? 'Reinforcing a constitutional principle' doesn't really tell us anything.
As I was saying: while the constitution presently rules out Sharia, we need to make legal and permanent that we are NOT going to revise it to allow Sharia.

In other words, we need the Supreme Court to rule Sharia an unacceptable breach of the Bill of Rights, and to rule it a thing not henceforth to be considered in America.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:41 pm
Sweden simply wouldn't tolerate a Sharia zone,

Yeah, they do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3wgqh3i1AI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcsG-u2GtZE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqY4Z1fTrMc
So in the first video, etc.
Ah, I see...evidence is not allowed. Gottit.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1750
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by FlashDangerpants » Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:18 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:52 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:38 pm
Constitutionalist? What even is that?
Someone who trusts in the constitution.
Why would I be a "constitutionalist" about the American constitution? I'm British.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:52 pm
Well if I'm opposed to the bigotry you display, then I am obliged to oppose weird children calling each other piss drinkers too. Is this something we should add to a constitution?
Yeah? What is "the bigotry I display"? Criticizing Islam?
Well you are doing the rape gangs bit. You did the all true muslims are fanatics bit. You've done the secret plan to take over the world bit too. Take any of the stuff you are saying about muslims and imagine somebody else saying it about Jews, if it seems that would be antisemitic bigotry, then you pretty much have your answer.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:52 pm
Must I tell you a second time that the first ammendment definitely says they should be allowed to "dicuss" things, so people discussing stuff can not be unconstitutional.

Well, then why can't people use the same mechanism to "discuss" making Sharia part of the constitution? If it's all just revisable by new circumstances anyway, as you say.

You can't have it both ways: either the constitution is, or is not merely revisable. If it is, then it's no guaranteed wall against Sharia, in the way you were saying it was.
Of course the constitution can be amended, we've already discussed the first, second and third amendments. Wtf do you think amend means?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:52 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:41 pm
Funny you should mention that. What particular group of people who are in the habit of beheading "infidels" were you referring to? Because I didn't even mention that issue.
So what? Why are you evading almost every point I make and then treating something shit like that as a genius ambush?
Hey, you brought it up...I didn't. So what group was it you were referring to?
In context it would pretty weird if I weren't referring to a stereotype of Islam that's very popular with you far right types. It's a shame you used that to avoid looking at the point I made beside it, which you edited out as always, to do with the difference between interpreting the document that is the US constitution and completely setting it aside.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:52 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:41 pm

Not at all. It was a reinforcing of an existing principle, one already in the constitution but now being challenged.
Explain. What is the thing you think should actually be done? 'Reinforcing a constitutional principle' doesn't really tell us anything.
As I was saying: while the constitution presently rules out Sharia, we need to make legal and permanent that we are NOT going to revise it to allow Sharia.

In other words, we need the Supreme Court to rule Sharia an unacceptable breach of the Bill of Rights, and to rule it a thing not henceforth to be considered in America.
Yeah ... about that ...the Bill of Rights ... that was made into actual rights by a process of ratification. The thing that makes them rights is that they became .... AMENDMENTS 1 THROUGH 10 of THE US CONSTITUTION ....

So when I wrote ... the fix you offered for the problem you are imagining was a change to the constitution ... I was entirely right.

So returning you to that theme of Locke ... the recommendation you are trying to support with the above arguments is implementally irrational on the basis of your own aruments against it having any effect.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:52 pm
Ah, I see...evidence is not allowed. Gottit.
You want evidence? Your middle video contains a shot from just past Aldgate East station in East London. That's where I had my curry and beer on Friday night. It's not a Sharia zone, or I wouldn't have been served beer there. You have been lied to by racists, and you fell for it because you are by nature, a bigot. This is a fact proven by my love of drinking and spicy food.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:49 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:18 am
Why would I be a "constitutionalist" about the American constitution? I'm British.
Hey, you were the one saying that the constitution would forever prevent Sharia.
Well you are doing the rape gangs bit.
Rubbish. Who is populating the rape gangs in Europe?
You did the all true muslims are fanatics bit.

Outright lie. I only said that conservative Muslims were.
You've done the secret plan to take over the world bit too.
No secret. Islam's proud of it. Do you know any of the history of the Islamic Crusades at all? When did you ever hear conservative Islamists repudiate their historical goals?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:52 pm
Of course the constitution can be amended, we've already discussed the first, second and third amendments. Wtf do you think amend means?
Then your answer "well, the constitution is against Sharia" means nothing.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:52 pm
So what? Why are you evading almost every point I make and then treating something shit like that as a genius ambush?
Hey, you brought it up...I didn't. So what group was it you were referring to?
In context it would pretty weird if I weren't referring to a stereotype of Islam that's very popular with you far right types.
Oh, I see...it's our fault again... :lol:

Well interesting that you're afraid to say what you know to be true -- what you, in fact, brought up yourself, entirely unbidden by me. Who was it who "beheads infidels" in this world right now? There's only one group. They triumphantly post their decapitations in video. In fact, they sawed the head off a soldier in your own streets, yelling "Allahu akbar." But you won't even name them, even though they're happy to name themselves.

Priceless.
So returning you to that theme of Locke ... the recommendation you are trying to support with the above arguments is implementally irrational on the basis of your own aruments against it having any effect.
Not at all. Locke advocates private conscience, and so do I. But Sharia is not private. It's control of the public, political sphere by Islam. It means the opposite of what Locke advocated...you DON'T get to follow your conscience...just your Imam's.
...you are by nature, a bigot.
Ad hominem.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1750
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by FlashDangerpants » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:43 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:49 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:18 am
Why would I be a "constitutionalist" about the American constitution? I'm British.
Hey, you were the one saying that the constitution would forever prevent Sharia.
No, I said Sharia law is unconstitutional - which it is.
I also mentioned there is no prospect of that changing - which there isn't.
Some future society could change the constitution to allow Sharia, but that would be constitutional because there are constitutional ways to amend the constitution.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:49 am
Well you are doing the rape gangs bit.
Rubbish. Who is populating the rape gangs in Europe?
If you are referring to the networks of paedophiles who find children to abuse and share, that's not specific to any religion or race. Although the Catholic clergy have been known to dabble.

If you are referring to the legend of the big gangs of muslim rapists that patrol some city somewhere and make life unbearable but the lamestream media is part of a jewish conspiracy not to publicise the facts because the jews own the newspapers ... well, that's a lie that nazis make up.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:49 am
You did the all true muslims are fanatics bit.

Outright lie. I only said that conservative Muslims were.
And you said all the others were non-Mohammed-emulating. And you said that emulating Mohammed was the point of Islam.

You also wrote this: "But we have a residual problem, and it's this: can we really tolerate as senators those to whom tolerance has no cultural value, and who actually reject freedom as a goal? For the goal of Islam is, by definition, "submission," not freedom."

Also, when I asked: Why would people you just called conservatives from the mid east be running as lefties in America? ... you gave me a spiel about useful idiots. It made no sense at all, but you reckoned it was easy to understand.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:49 am
You've done the secret plan to take over the world bit too.
No secret. Islam's proud of it. Do you know any of the history of the Islamic Crusades at all? When did you ever hear conservative Islamists repudiate their historical goals?
But there was a whole thing about them having a special category of religious lie for the purpose.
When have I heard you proclaim that Jesus shouldn't come back to Earth and fight the antichrist and take over the world?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:49 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:52 pm
Of course the constitution can be amended, we've already discussed the first, second and third amendments. Wtf do you think amend means?
Then your answer "well, the constitution is against Sharia" means nothing.
Don't be obtuse. The constitution does and for the forseeable future will make Sharia law impossible in the USA. If some future iteration of society decides to excercise a democratic right to amend the constitution, that's democracy, that's what it's for.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:49 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:52 pm

Hey, you brought it up...I didn't. So what group was it you were referring to?
In context it would pretty weird if I weren't referring to a stereotype of Islam that's very popular with you far right types.
Oh, I see...it's our fault again... :lol:

Well interesting that you're afraid to say what you know to be true -- what you, in fact, brought up yourself, entirely unbidden by me. Who was it who "beheads infidels" in this world right now? There's only one group. They triumphantly post their decapitations in video. In fact, they sawed the head off a soldier in your own streets, yelling "Allahu akbar." But you won't even name them, even though they're happy to name themselves.

Priceless.
You wrote So you get the pacifistic teacher of Galilee as your example, or you get the bloodthirsty slayer of "infidels" as your example. As a democrat, which would you find more harmonious with democracy? so don't pull that 'unbiden by me' bullshit.

I'm pretty sure I've referred to ISIS multiple time in this conversation, so I have no idea why you are saying I won't name them.

The guys who walk into mosques and shoot them up have all been posting variations on this meme before hand.
Image
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:49 am
So returning you to that theme of Locke ... the recommendation you are trying to support with the above arguments is implementally irrational on the basis of your own aruments against it having any effect.
Not at all. Locke advocates private conscience, and so do I. But Sharia is not private. It's control of the public, political sphere by Islam. It means the opposite of what Locke advocated...you DON'T get to follow your conscience...just your Imam's.
You have read the letter concerning toleration, right? It has a famous argument in it to do with implemental/instrumental rationality. I brought it up because it is instrumentally irrational to fix the issue of the constitution being amendable by amending the constitution.

Your response is a non-sequitur because you left out the important bits of the response and argued against a sentence that you failed to understand due to your habit of pretending there is no context to these things.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1750
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by FlashDangerpants » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:46 am

Ahem. I note that you are avoiding mention of the fact I have been to one of your Sharia zones and it wasn't there.
Do you not at least owe a retraction of that lie?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:52 pm
So in the first video, etc.
Ah, I see...evidence is not allowed. Gottit.
You want evidence? Your middle video contains a shot from just past Aldgate East station in East London. That's where I had my curry and beer on Friday night. It's not a Sharia zone, or I wouldn't have been served beer there. You have been lied to by racists, and you fell for it because you are by nature, a bigot. This is a fact proven by my love of drinking and spicy food.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests