Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

For Mirza

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2010 9:28:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
And you disagree with this, hence the clash of cultures.

I disagree as a human being. I disagree because I find things being bad for others.

You have not the right to make that choice and impose it upon others.

How many western countries have banned the burka?

It does not matter how many.

It is directly relevant to the point that you made, if you are going to use burkha bans to attack the west then please tell us how mnay countries have done this.

Even if one like France bans it, it is enough to discriminate those who wear it. It is not fair to those women.

If it is worn of their own free will then that is fair enough, however it is also evidence of a negative dictatorial and antithical religion. Lets be honest here, proposals to ban the burkhas have nothing to do with burkhas, it is simply an attack on Islam because Islam is a threat to western liberalism.

You have to differentiate between things. I have not said that I cannot be myself in the West. I have merely spoken out against its negatives.

If you hate the west then leave, it's not rocket science.

No she is not, she is generally more respected for having done so.

Is that why people look at her as if she were something coming from beyond Earth?

No they don't, a woman in modest dressed is a common sight.

----------------
Cerebral, I am trying to stop a discussion not related to Sikhism by writing a very long post, and it is for Anacharsis, not you. What happens? You reply to me, although I wrote that to him, and instead of actually letting it go even though you may disagree, and I know you will, you reply to me and start a new discussion. If others also wanted to reply to that, which is not related to Sikhism, then I would have to respond to five people with regards to one post. If I am speaking to you, then feel free to reply. If not, and I am trying to go back to the subject, then do everybody a favor and avoid starting a new discussion

You derailed the thread. I asked you to desist and you did it again. I asked you again, and you did it again. Please stop be honest for once.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2010 1:27:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/18/2010 9:28:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You have not the right to make that choice and impose it upon others.
I have the right to stand against evil. Why are you not pro-abortion? Because it harms a living being. Why am I not pro-intoxicants? Because it harms a living being. Kudos to you if we ever stop creating problems caused by intoxication!

It is directly relevant to the point that you made, if you are going to use burkha bans to attack the west then please tell us how mnay countries have done this.
Turn on your news channel! They boast about it in Denmark, UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands etc. etc. etc. They ban them in public institutions in countries like France, where schools do not permit wearing them.

And yes, it does not matter how many have it banned right now. What matters is how many will ban it! What matters is how many will keep making Muslims look like fools! And that is a high number.

If it is worn of their own free will then that is fair enough, however it is also evidence of a negative dictatorial and antithical religion. Lets be honest here, proposals to ban the burkhas have nothing to do with burkhas, it is simply an attack on Islam because Islam is a threat to western liberalism.
What is this Western Liberalism? The thing that kills millions of people annually? The thing that lets women be prostitutes? The thing that leads to loss of bloodline? The thing that ruins the lives of countless families? Is this something you represent and advocate? Ad if it is negative and a form of dictatorship, who are you to tell me that it's any of them? Women who choose to wear them do it because it is positive. They are also much happier than most of those who don't. I think the current generation of Western children will be the worst of people in the future. They are lazy, behave inhumanely, and do I have to mention more?

This 'freedom' is not freedom but catastrophe. It is not a catastrophe to those who do not enjoy all of its 'pleasures', but definitely is to those who do it.

If you hate the west then leave, it's not rocket science.
Hate? Fortunately, I do not hate the West. If you attack Shari'a Law, then I will let you know why there more reason to attack democracy. I don't care about democracy for my own soul, but for those who suffer from it. Those who would live happily had there been something to prevent them from digging their own grave.

And you should not ignore what I said. As long as I can be myself in the West, I do not mind living here. If you do not want be to speak out against catastrophic laws, then please speak out against freedom of expression.

No they don't, a woman in modest dressed is a common sight.
Yes, during winter. It's not even modest then. Women wear these leggings that keep them warm. Is this modest? Boys wear pants that show their underwear really well. What is this to you? This is inhumane! Boys starting to show their bottoms is nothing but absurd, and that is not only immodest, but it's also inhumane, immoral, uncivilized, and disgraceful!

You derailed the thread. I asked you to desist and you did it again. I asked you again, and you did it again. Please stop be honest for once.
How, in all honesty, did I derail that thread?

http://www.debate.org...

Not only did you write a comment before me, but you also mentioned Muslims (hereby Islam) in a very negative way. What did I do? I asked you a question. I did nothing more than you did, nor start the discussion. Then Zetsubou said something in the same manner as you, and I did nothing but respond. Then mattrodstrom came into the discussion. Three people speaking negatively about Muslims and myself!

http://www.debate.org...

Once I stopped discussing with matt, what happened? You came back. You made some statements again, and I did nothing but respond.

Then Anacharsis made a point, and I responded to it, because it was kind of related to Sikhism and Islam, and it was also informative, something I'm sure Anacharsis did not mind. I also made a short post after the huge one. It was to nobody but Anacharsis. What happened?

http://www.debate.org...

You responded to a point I made to Anachrasis! Why couldn't you let it go after we stopped discussing before? And again, I just responded to it. http://www.debate.org...

Then you tell me that I am the one who hijacked the thread? It is unfair. It is unfair that I have to waste my time actually explaining something that is clear from the first page of that thread! You mentioned Islam negatively, then Zetsu and matt, and I only responded. In fact, my first comment to that thread was directly related to Sikhism, besides the comment I wrote as a response to you. This means that if you did not write that comment, I would not have discussed anything besides Sikhism in the first place.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2010 1:32:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ok, guys. Here's an idea. Let's keep the stuff about Islam in the Islam threads, let's keep the stuff about Sikhism in the Sikhism threads, the stuff about Christianity in the Christianity threads, the stuff about Atheism in the Atheism threads, etc...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2010 11:45:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/18/2010 1:27:48 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/18/2010 9:28:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You have not the right to make that choice and impose it upon others.
I have the right to stand against evil.

I don't consider you have the right to deny me a beer. If you don't want to drink that is fine. If you want to live in a country where people don't drink that is fine. I do not recognise your authority to deny me the right to drink.

Why are you not pro-abortion? Because it harms a living being. Why am I not pro-intoxicants? Because it harms a living being. Kudos to you if we ever stop creating problems caused by intoxication!

I am against abortion because it harms a sentient being without that being's consent. I am able to drink safely, and I consent to taking the risk.


It is directly relevant to the point that you made, if you are going to use burkha bans to attack the west then please tell us how mnay countries have done this.
Turn on your news channel! They boast about it in Denmark, UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands etc. etc. etc. They ban them in public institutions in countries like France, where schools do not permit wearing them.

Actually France bans all overt religious symbols in schools, it does not ban the burkha outright. It is certainly not banned in the UK, where the legal right of Muslim school girls has been protected, and even the rights of workers to wear such garb even if it interferes with their job. This is despite the many problems the Islamic population is causing. That is liberalism for you.

And yes, it does not matter how many have it banned right now. What matters is how many will ban it! What matters is how many will keep making Muslims look like fools! And that is a high number.

Maybe what is MORE important is why these bans are even proposed?


If it is worn of their own free will then that is fair enough, however it is also evidence of a negative dictatorial and antithical religion. Lets be honest here, proposals to ban the burkhas have nothing to do with burkhas, it is simply an attack on Islam because Islam is a threat to western liberalism.
What is this Western Liberalism? The thing that kills millions of people annually?

Again with the single issue.

The thing that lets women be prostitutes?

I believe prostitution should be legal. Islam makes it compulsory.

The thing that leads to loss of bloodline? The thing that ruins the lives of countless families? Is this something you represent and advocate? Ad if it is negative and a form of dictatorship, who are you to tell me that it's any of them? Women who choose to wear them do it because it is positive. They are also much happier than most of those who don't.

Good for them, but I still do not want my country colonised and it's values replaced by ones that are dictatorial, violent and sexist.

I think the current generation of Western children will be the worst of people in the future. They are lazy, behave inhumanely, and do I have to mention more?


I think that terrorists are worse people than the minority of children who are brought up to be 'chavs'. Maybe you can tell us why governments like the UK have decided to spend millions on Moslem youths because that group is more likely than any other to turn to violent crime?

This 'freedom' is not freedom but catastrophe. It is not a catastrophe to those who do not enjoy all of its 'pleasures', but definitely is to those who do it.

If you hate the west then leave, it's not rocket science.
Hate? Fortunately, I do not hate the West. If you attack Shari'a Law, then I will let you know why there more reason to attack democracy. I don't care about democracy for my own soul, but for those who suffer from it. Those who would live happily had there been something to prevent them from digging their own grave.

And you should not ignore what I said. As long as I can be myself in the West, I do not mind living here. If you do not want be to speak out against catastrophic laws, then please speak out against freedom of expression.

No I will not speak out against basic human rights.


No they don't, a woman in modest dressed is a common sight.
Yes, during winter. It's not even modest then. Women wear these leggings that keep them warm. Is this modest?

Yes. Unless by leggings you mean something else.

Boys wear pants that show their underwear really well. What is this to you?

Annoying, my sons won't want to wear their trousers like that, and won't be allowed to.

This is inhumane! Boys starting to show their bottoms is nothing but absurd, and that is not only immodest, but it's also inhumane, immoral, uncivilized, and disgraceful!


That would make an excellent quote!

You derailed the thread. I asked you to desist and you did it again. I asked you again, and you did it again. Please stop be honest for once.
How, in all honesty, did I derail that thread?

It is not a subject up for debate, you repeatedly derailed the thread.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2010 11:46:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/18/2010 1:32:38 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Ok, guys. Here's an idea. Let's keep the stuff about Islam in the Islam threads, let's keep the stuff about Sikhism in the Sikhism threads, the stuff about Christianity in the Christianity threads, the stuff about Atheism in the Atheism threads, etc...

A bit of overlap is acceptable, but come on be fair. When someone is politely asked to keep on topic but can only yell "MY RELIGION LETS TALK ABOUT MY RELIGION" it is annoying and trollish!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2010 12:18:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/18/2010 11:46:14 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/18/2010 1:32:38 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Ok, guys. Here's an idea. Let's keep the stuff about Islam in the Islam threads, let's keep the stuff about Sikhism in the Sikhism threads, the stuff about Christianity in the Christianity threads, the stuff about Atheism in the Atheism threads, etc...

A bit of overlap is acceptable, but come on be fair. When someone is politely asked to keep on topic but can only yell "MY RELIGION LETS TALK ABOUT MY RELIGION" it is annoying and trollish!

Well regardless, it's still a problem when talk of that particular religion derails an entire thread that is about something else.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2010 9:08:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/18/2010 11:45:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I don't consider you have the right to deny me a beer. If you don't want to drink that is fine. If you want to live in a country where people don't drink that is fine. I do not recognise your authority to deny me the right to drink.
I have the right to speak out against whatever harms others besides yourself. If people had the strength to control themselves even while intoxicated, I would not stand much against it politically. However, do you think people should ignore the fact that thousands of people die annually, millions in years, due to not themselves consuming intoxicants, but others? How many people were killed or severely harmed by intoxicated people, and it still happens day after day? Do you not take any of this seriously? If you can control yourself, fine. But if something ruins the lives of others who had not been involved in evil actions (e.g. consuming intoxicants), then it should be banned. The fact that you enjoy your beer is bad for those who suffer for their killed loved ones, or their loved ones who have gotten their lives ruined.

I am against abortion because it harms a sentient being without that being's consent. I am able to drink safely, and I consent to taking the risk.
You are able to drink safely. Let us talk about countless of others who are not able to do that. Why do people perform abortions? They have sex, find out that some of them got pregnant, and then kill the child. Just because some people are able to have sex does not mean that all of them are. Therefore, as long as intoxicants will harm millions of people, I will speak against it.

Actually France bans all overt religious symbols in schools, it does not ban the burkha outright. It is certainly not banned in the UK, where the legal right of Muslim school girls has been protected, and even the rights of workers to wear such garb even if it interferes with their job. This is despite the many problems the Islamic population is causing. That is liberalism for you.
France does not ban it in private schools. They do nevertheless speak against the burqa, against minarets, and so forth. In Denmark, they speak about banning the hijab in public institutions, burqa in general, etc. It is unreasonable.

And you know what? Out of all the Muslims in the West, do you know how few pray? Do you know how few avoid great sins like fornication, consuming intoxicants etc.? There are lots of Muslim people here in Denmark, and those who own some stores etc. sell alcohol, pork, and great deal of other non-Islamic things. I think they will oppose Shari'a Law before you.

As for the reproduction rate, it is rapid now, but it may be that it is only due to the first generation of immigrants, because in their homelands they reproduce more for several reasons. The ones that integrate now will not stand much out, I think.
Maybe what is MORE important is why these bans are even proposed?
Because they value 'women dignity'. This is shameful. Has prostitution ever been positive? They should ban that.

Again with the single issue.
It is not one issue. It is tons of issues. A list of the catastrophes in the West is too long to write here.

I believe prostitution should be legal. Islam makes it compulsory.
This sounds much more correct: You think whatever Islam prohibits should be legal.

Good for them, but I still do not want my country colonised and it's values replaced by ones that are dictatorial, violent and sexist.
Those values will save the lives of millions. They will enlighten the lives of millions. They will prevent a few hundred thousand unborn children from being massacred. They are the most perfect values. What are your values? Allowing prostitution? When in the history of the world has this even been a good value? It is shameful. More shameful that you support this but not civilized laws.

I think that terrorists are worse people than the minority of children who are brought up to be 'chavs'. Maybe you can tell us why governments like the UK have decided to spend millions on Moslem youths because that group is more likely than any other to turn to violent crime?
Because they come from countries that your fellow politicians have destroyed? Let me see Egypt attack your country and see how well-functioning minds the citizens of your country will have.

No I will not speak out against basic human rights.
There are no 'human rights'. This absurd term should not belong to anywhere. Those who made it clearly have not realized that this thing creates problems instead of preventing them. Those in the UN boast about their call for help to solve problems, yet they themselves are letting problems arise. If it is a human right for you to be intoxicated and kill others, then those in the UN should fire themselves. They are nothing but brainwashed politicians, most of them.

Yes. Unless by leggings you mean something else.
Those black trousers women wear as if they painted their legs. This is not modest.

Annoying, my sons won't want to wear their trousers like that, and won't be allowed to.
Your children will not be allowed to wear those? Interesting. Why not give them basic rights? Can you see what this is from your side? Double-standards. You keep boasting about basic rights, legality of prostitution, dress code, etc., and now you want to prohibit modern fashion for your sons? Why? Because you want the best thing for them? I think so. Islam wants the best thing for all people, much like you want for your offspring. This is logical! Once we talk about taking care of people, you speak against it. When it comes to your sons, you tell me they won't be allowed to wear this fashion? Well worded.

That would make an excellent quote!
I guess it would.

---------------------
It is not a subject up for debate, you repeatedly derailed the thread.
That is the only thing you say. I came with clear refutations. If you do not want to discuss it, then don't mention it. I'm not going to let anyone get me down like this. I'm not one of those who will just be accused of anything without defending myself. This is not just.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2010 9:30:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/19/2010 9:08:09 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/18/2010 11:45:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I don't consider you have the right to deny me a beer. If you don't want to drink that is fine. If you want to live in a country where people don't drink that is fine. I do not recognise your authority to deny me the right to drink.

I have the right to speak out against whatever harms others besides yourself.

You have the right to expression, not the right to dictate.

If people had the strength to control themselves even while intoxicated, I would not stand much against it politically. However, do you think people should ignore the fact that thousands of people die annually, millions in years, due to not themselves consuming intoxicants, but others? How many people were killed or severely harmed by intoxicated people, and it still happens day after day? Do you not take any of this seriously?

I do take it seriously, I fully support the laws that punish drink drivers.

If you can control yourself, fine. But if something ruins the lives of others who had not been involved in evil actions (e.g. consuming intoxicants), then it should be banned.

Why should their mistakes cause me a lost of freedom.

The fact that you enjoy your beer is bad for those who suffer for their killed loved ones, or their loved ones who have gotten their lives ruined.


The two have no bearing on each other.

I am against abortion because it harms a sentient being without that being's consent. I am able to drink safely, and I consent to taking the risk.
You are able to drink safely. Let us talk about countless of others who are not able to do that.

They are taught the risks of alcohol and ample opportunities are given them to sort themselves out.

Why do people perform abortions? They have sex, find out that some of them got pregnant, and then kill the child.

Seperate issue.

Just because some people are able to have sex does not mean that all of them are. Therefore, as long as intoxicants will harm millions of people, I will speak against it.

Fair enough, but my point is that you do not have the right to dictate.


Actually France bans all overt religious symbols in schools, it does not ban the burkha outright. It is certainly not banned in the UK, where the legal right of Muslim school girls has been protected, and even the rights of workers to wear such garb even if it interferes with their job. This is despite the many problems the Islamic population is causing. That is liberalism for you.

France does not ban it in private schools. They do nevertheless speak against the burqa, against minarets, and so forth.

That is because it is a liberal democracy and freedom of speech is permitted, they have a terrible immigration crisis, race riots, violent muslim youths torching cars and the constant threat that some idiot will detonate himself in order to obtain 72 virgins in paradise. It is shining testamant to the french state that they have not outlawed Islam. Should a Christian minority be behaving as such in an Islamic country the problem would be solved by public beheadings.

In Denmark, they speak about banning the hijab in public institutions, burqa in general, etc. It is unreasonable.

It is motivated by fear. If there was nothing to fear then they would be no such suggestions. They are not talking about banning Sikh turbans, or orthodox Jewish garb... why not?

And you know what? Out of all the Muslims in the West, do you know how few pray? Do you know how few avoid great sins like fornication, consuming intoxicants etc.? There are lots of Muslim people here in Denmark, and those who own some stores etc. sell alcohol, pork, and great deal of other non-Islamic things. I think they will oppose Shari'a Law before you.

Well hopefully.

As for the reproduction rate, it is rapid now, but it may be that it is only due to the first generation of immigrants, because in their homelands they reproduce more for several reasons. The ones that integrate now will not stand much out, I think.
Maybe what is MORE important is why these bans are even proposed?
Because they value 'women dignity'. This is shameful. Has prostitution ever been positive? They should ban that.

No, because we are scared of Islam.


Again with the single issue.
It is not one issue. It is tons of issues. A list of the catastrophes in the West is too long to write here.

I believe prostitution should be legal. Islam makes it compulsory.
This sounds much more correct: You think whatever Islam prohibits should be legal.

No, I believe that services can be purchased and that anything goes sexually between consenting adults. The point is in the west a woman can be a lawyer or a prostitute. In Islam she can only be a woman, and is solely defined by whatever male owns her at any given time.

Good for them, but I still do not want my country colonised and it's values replaced by ones that are dictatorial, violent and sexist.
Those values will save the lives of millions. They will enlighten the lives of millions. They will prevent a few hundred thousand unborn children from being massacred. They are the most perfect values. What are your values? Allowing prostitution? When in the history of the world has this even been a good value? It is shameful. More shameful that you support this but not civilized laws.


Is the voluntary exchange of money for services wrong... no.
Is consenting sex between adults wrong... no.
There is in fact no justification for prostitution not to be legal.

I think that terrorists are worse people than the minority of children who are brought up to be 'chavs'. Maybe you can tell us why governments like the UK have decided to spend millions on Moslem youths because that group is more likely than any other to turn to violent crime?
Because they come from countries that your fellow politicians have destroyed?

They all come Iraq do they?

No I will not speak out against basic human rights.
There are no 'human rights'. This absurd term should not belong to anywhere.

Our world views are alien to each other. Which really is the essence of the matter.

Yes. Unless by leggings you mean something else.
Those black trousers women wear as if they painted their legs. This is not modest.


I think they are.

Annoying, my sons won't want to wear their trousers like that, and won't be allowed to.
Your children will not be allowed to wear those? Interesting. Why not give them basic rights? Can you see what this is from your side? Double-standards. You keep boasting about basic rights, legality of prostitution, dress code, etc., and now you want to prohibit modern fashion for your sons? Why? Because you want the best thing for them?

It is not double standards, adults have the right to freedom so as long as this freedom does not harm others. Children have the right to be fed, clothed, educated, and trained. Once they become adults they can expose their bums to the world all they want.

I think so. Islam wants the best thing for all people, much like you want for your offspring. This is logical! Once we talk about taking care of people, you speak against it. When it comes to your sons, you tell me they won't be allowed to wear this fashion? Well worded.

I am 31, I dont want to be treated as a child.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2010 10:01:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/19/2010 9:30:26 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You have the right to expression, not the right to dictate.
What have I been doing so far?

I do take it seriously, I fully support the laws that punish drink drivers.
I support laws not making anybody a drunk driver in the first place.

Why should their mistakes cause me a lost of freedom.
If you can see how harmful it is to a society, then why be so self-centered instead of thinking about alternatives? There are thousands of drinks you can buy, much healthier than beer. In fact, there is beer without alcohol. They got those in Islamic countries. There is wine without alcohol. There is a lot you can drink instead of alcohol. You won't lose freedom, rather have something replaced with the already existing freedom.

The two have no bearing on each other.
Because people like you stand up for alcohol, other people die from it.

They are taught the risks of alcohol and ample opportunities are given them to sort themselves out.
That works very well. I see how well-functioning societies we have. I see too many drunk people in the streets. This is not a good sight. I am glad I am not one of them, though.

Seperate issue.
No, it is this 'freedom'.

Fair enough, but my point is that you do not have the right to dictate.
Neither do you.

That is because it is a liberal democracy and freedom of speech is permitted, they have a terrible immigration crisis, race riots, violent muslim youths torching cars and the constant threat that some idiot will detonate himself in order to obtain 72 virgins in paradise. It is shining testamant to the french state that they have not outlawed Islam. Should a Christian minority be behaving as such in an Islamic country
How many Muslims have performed terrorist actions in France? This is nonsense! What do they fear? This racist and terroristic president they have is the one they should fear. How many suicide bombings did we see before 9/11? Very few. The planes controlled by the most terroristic government so far in this century have fooled the world and made people afraid of Islam. Can you not see how the puzzle works? Fly a few planes into a few buildings, detonate a bomb on Pentagon and make it look like a plane, invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and then make it look like Muslims are blowing themselves up every day. This is a hoax! One day people will realize how truthful people like me stood against this propaganda. They blow up a car with their bombs and then blame it on Muslims. They are terrorists. Who should we fear? You government. The government your government likes. Those, not Muslim governments.

If you think Islamic countries will keep looking at this without doing anything, you're wrong. Let's see how long Iran will wait before crushing the terrorists of the Israeli government, or any other near it.

It is motivated by fear. If there was nothing to fear then they would be no such suggestions. They are not talking about banning Sikh turbans, or orthodox Jewish garb... why not?
Had Sikhs possessed what the West is looking for, and Sikhs rose high in numbers everywhere, we would see the same propaganda everywhere. But we Muslims are rising more than anyone else. We will be in every country,and in every building, until people start crying their eyes out. You are not afraid of us, but afraid of true human values. Fearing a woman who covers herself modestly? Shame on those who do.

Well hopefully.
Hopefully not. But I'm afraid it may be true.

No, because we are scared of Islam.
Yes, you are scared of peace. That's what Islam is. You are scared of people valuing life. You are not scared of the gangs that may bring your children into trouble? You are not afraid of the fact that your children may die due to intoxicants?

No, I believe that services can be purchased and that anything goes sexually between consenting adults. The point is in the west a woman can be a lawyer or a prostitute. In Islam she can only be a woman, and is solely defined by whatever male owns her at any given time.
In Islam, she can be modest, moral, human, civilized, dignified, respected, loved, etc. She can be a doctor. She can be an engineer. Nobody tells her not to. She should always seek knowledge. How do you attain knowledge? By studying. Don't worry, my wife will be as much respected and loved as possible. She will not be more enslaved than yours, or anybody else's.

Is the voluntary exchange of money for services wrong... no.
Is consenting sex between adults wrong... no.
There is in fact no justification for prostitution not to be legal.
And prostitutes won't mind adulterating with a man who pays her for one night? She might not be infected with a severely harmful disease?

They all come Iraq do they?
They send people for that. They enjoy life too much, and in a bad way. They have ruined two countries and left them in horrible states.

Our world views are alien to each other. Which really is the essence of the matter.
With regards to freedom, believe it or not, I look at it from one perspective just like you do. I do not care if people do horrible acts. It usually strengthens my good sides when I see all the bad things that are going on. I just have the right to say why these things are bad, and should other laws come into question, I have the right to say why they are better or worse.

I think they are.
Then your view of modesty is nothing but flawed. Are you not attracted to women with tight pants?

It is not double standards, adults have the right to freedom so as long as this freedom does not harm others. Children have the right to be fed, clothed, educated, and trained. Once they become adults they can expose their bums to the world all they want.
This freedom does harm others. It is plain simple. Look at the statistics; they almost bring tears.

I am 31, I dont want to be treated as a child.
You should be treated as a human being. Islam does treat you like that. Democracy? Not so much. Are you an anarchist?