Are people taking freedom of speech too far?

Posted by: Foodiesoul

To me, freedom of speech means being able to voice your opinions and say what you want to say but not using offensive language that is sexist, racist, or prejudiced in nature. Thankfully, the Political Correctness police do not tolerate prejudiced language of any sort. It's illegal to burn the national flag in a lot of countries, including the U.S. Are people taking "freedom of speech" way too far?

Vote
26 Total Votes
1

No, people are not taking freedom of speech too far.

19 votes
11 comments
2

Yes, people are taking freedom of speech too far.

7 votes
3 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
bballcrook21 says2016-07-23T20:30:36.3936833Z
We should have a discussion on freedom of speech. Your definition of freedom of speech is inherently wrong.
Foodiesoul says2016-07-23T20:34:07.0289339Z
@bballcrook21 Okay. Let's.
BirdieMachine says2016-07-23T21:41:20.4552983Z
It's not illegal to burn the U.S. Flag, Nor is Racist or Swearing illegal unless it's a minor Local/State Law. I'm not sure what Foodiesoul is thinking?
Foodiesoul says2016-07-23T21:43:00.9645719Z
@BirdieMachine I never said swearing was illegal. It's okay to swear.
Foodiesoul says2016-07-23T21:44:18.8714713Z
A police officer told me that burning the US flag is a federal crime so that's why I thought it's illegal to burn the US flag.
Heterodox says2016-07-23T22:25:34.7321421Z
@Foodiesoul, Police lie, a lot, they are allowed to.
Foodiesoul says2016-07-23T22:26:57.7402742Z
@Heterodox I thought the police were supposed to be honest and protect people.
Heterodox says2016-07-23T22:29:38.1405024Z
@Foodiesoul You thought wrong. Their job, most of the time (not always), is to meet their quota's; ie. To make money.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2016-07-24T03:00:27.2038082Z
Frankly, why any developed, self-respecting nation would tolerate an act as treacherous and disgusting as flag-burning is beyond me.
Heterodox says2016-07-24T03:26:07.7334332Z
@Diqiucun_Cunmin, Given you place no value on freedom, I can understand why it is beyond you. The U.S. flag is the symbol for a country that values freedom. To now allow people the freedom to burn it, would be hypocrisy.
Heterodox says2016-07-24T03:28:39.3995498Z
@Diqiucun_Cunmin, Given you place no value on freedom, I can understand why it is beyond you. The U.S. flag is the symbol for a country that values freedom. To not* allow people the freedom to burn it, would be hypocrisy. *No edit feature...
triangle.128k says2016-07-24T05:56:22.0547822Z
Foodiesoul defines freedom of speech as any thought that doesn't offend him. Wow, you can physically feel the totalitarianism expressed at this point.
triangle.128k says2016-07-24T06:00:19.2729440Z
@Diqiucun Why is flag burning always "treacherous and disgusting?"
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2016-07-26T10:01:30.6934634Z
@Heterodox: I think you misunderstood my comment. I said freedom has no *intrinsic* value. Freedom can have value if its existence can bring about moral, prudential, aesthetic or other benefits. In particular, freedom is valuable when it is useful for advancing discussion. Flag burning and hate speech do not fall into this category, and thus there is no value in allowing them.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2016-07-26T10:04:03.9196100Z
@triangle: The flag not only represents the regime or the state, but also the people, its culture, its traditions and so forth. Flag burning is an flagrant expression of contempt towards all of the state's people and culture, and more of a way of inciting anger and conflict that anything else.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2016-07-26T10:04:33.1233716Z
Also, no pun intended...
Heterodox says2016-07-27T04:29:13.2442313Z
@Diqiucun_Cunmin, I didn't misunderstand at all.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T05:17:11.1372000Z
If there was no freedom of speech and you really didn't like being around flag burners or people expressing hate speech, then how would you avoid them if they can't legally express their thoughts and feelings?
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T05:19:56.5606604Z
If you believe hate speech sjould be outlawed, then you don't believe in free speech.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2016-07-27T05:42:37.5677282Z
@Heterodox: Okay.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2016-07-27T05:46:35.5035038Z
@triangle: Be careful though - I didn't say hate speech should be banned. There are issues with implementation, such as costs, potential ambiguity or vagueness in laws (leading to issues of interpretation), etc., which may outweigh the benefit gained by banning hate speech. And, in a racially homogeneous society, allowing hate speech may bring benefits during war, since it can be an effective tool for mobilisation. That would be a legitimate use of hate speech. Whether hate speech needs to be banned, I think, depends very much on the nature of the society we're talking about. Flag burning is another issue altogether. It is never beneficial, and there aren't as many legal difficulties as a hate speech law would face - if you put fire on the flag... Well, you burnt it. So I would always support a law against flag-burning.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2016-07-27T05:50:03.0966959Z
@triangle: With respect to the other point, I think it's possible to avoid someone with radical views, even if he doesn't use hate speech or burn flags. Heil was actually pretty courteous most of the time, for example, (well, at least to me), and didn't racial slurs very often.
Heterodox says2016-07-27T06:08:36.4625776Z
@Diqiucun_Cunmin I value freedom. There are things I would consider positive consequences [of freedom] and there are things I would consider negative consequences. But if you remove the negatives, you remove freedom and the positives with it, it's a package deal. And considering those positives and negatives are subjective, I'm okay with that.|| Do you not recognize the hypocrisy in having a symbol that, in part, represents the freedom of speech/expression, then banning the freedom of speech/expression? What would the symbol represent then? Freedom of speech/expression, but only if it is considered valuable by a large enough group? I would want to burn that symbol, even though I wouldn't be allowed.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2016-07-27T07:14:15.1134482Z
@Heterodox: I tend to disagree with that, since liberalism and illiberalism aren't really a dichotomy. I think it's best to find an optimal point between the two. || 'The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, **except to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law.**' That's the definition from the French Revolution, but it remains relevant today, I think.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T07:35:52.0901391Z
That can be interpreted in many ways. Hate speech was never illegal in France until recently.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T07:39:35.3119700Z
Flag burning is just an extreme example of expression.
Heterodox says2016-07-27T07:43:57.1981184Z
@Diqiucun_Cunmin I don't care that you disagree, either. What I do care about is that you think I shouldn't be able to express my opinion, because you don't agree with it (or find value in it).
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T07:48:45.5430971Z
The US was a country that stood and fought for Classical Liberal ideas of freedom including free speech. So it would be quite hypocritical to say we're a free society with freedom of speech, religion, expression, etc but not allow burning a flag as an exception.
lightseeker says2016-07-27T08:03:59.6621568Z
@triangle.128k the US and it's founders killed tens of millions of Indians, and used slavery for more than 200 years, and used their so called veto "right" to silence the consensus of the world against Zionist regime occupying Palestine. So when you say US defended the freedom of speech, and when we compare US' actions with this sentence, we understand that your words carry no weight. US only defended the freedom of speech that ensured US's benefits, and fought against freedom (like it's fight against revolution in Iran) that went against it's profits.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T08:13:35.2610642Z
Oh f*ck off you Islamist ape; nobody invited you herw.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T08:17:41.0445847Z
You're blind to the human rights violations that Iran has, because nearly every human rights organization and the UN places Iran as having severe human rights abuses, wheras the US has one of the best human rights records. All you spew out against this is logical fallacies.
lightseeker says2016-07-27T08:17:43.5658382Z
Haha. Your pathetic effort to hide your Logical weakness behind your offensive language, tell plenty about you. And it's actually kinda funny. When logic comes, stupidity runs :)
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T08:19:31.4561298Z
Actually, I will gladly challenge you to a debate on which country has better human rights.
Heterodox says2016-07-27T08:24:42.4909236Z
What does the UN know about human rights?
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T08:26:49.1013352Z
If you really want to argue about intervention, keep in mind that Iran is backing Assad's brutal regime in Syria which massacres its own people...
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T08:28:22.4991339Z
@Heterodox Every other human rights organization states the US has better human rights than Iran...
Heterodox says2016-07-27T08:31:20.5382072Z
@triangle.128k, Are we talking about the people living in the US or the people being bombed by the US?
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T08:35:14.6039468Z
War is a necessary evil. Civillian casualties are not avoidable in a war.
Heterodox says2016-07-27T08:37:31.0285703Z
@triangle.128k Who said anything about war? The US hasn't been in a war since WWII.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T08:40:57.7325453Z
Wrong, the US hasn't declared a war since WW2. Nowadays, the US intervenes in wars without formally declaring so.
lightseeker says2016-07-27T08:45:24.0560823Z
Iran is backing Assad and US backed Saudi Arabia and Saddam Husein and Taliban and ISIS and the Zionist regime. Actually take a look at some of the authoritarian regimes US has backed: https://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_United_States and Assad isn't killing it's own people. If he was, he would've done it before ISIS attacked them too, which he didn't. You're blaming Assad for what ISIS and your Allies are doing. And US always backs people and governments that have killed Muslims. Take Myanmar for example, between 25000 - 50000 Muslims were killed in the hands of Buddhist monks. And US supported them after that. Yet that history is almost wiped from the pages of history. Britain killed 9 million Persians in WW1. That is not mentioned in genocides of 20th century. US bombed japan and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians there. And then passed a resolution against north Korea for kidnapping one Japanese person. You're a fool, controlled by illusions.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T08:48:56.9893616Z
The US backs a bunch of regimes considering our vast power. Of course one of them has ought to be authoritarian.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T08:52:19.7308604Z
Assad's regime is Totalitarian and it uses chemical weapons against its people.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T08:55:17.8862864Z
The only point you mentioned that the US is at fault for is Japan in WW2. It's funny though how you say the US is evil for ending a brutal empire with 2 nukes. Japan during WW2 killed at least 30 million Chinese, and a bunch of other people during its invasion of Asia. But then the US is evil for stopping Japan from massacring more with just 2 nukes that weren't as bad as Japanese forces.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T08:57:02.4706976Z
Also, why should the US permanently feel guilt for its mistakes in the past?
lightseeker says2016-07-27T09:04:00.1687301Z
Take another look. US didn't back only one totalitarian regime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_United_States
Heterodox says2016-07-27T09:14:03.8267064Z
@triangle.128k You can't have a war without declaring war, unless done so illegally.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T09:16:41.8533776Z
@Heterodox Yeah you sure can, you can fight in a conflict without officially declaring so.
lightseeker says2016-07-27T09:16:48.8111114Z
Also, Iran supports Assad with it's fight against ISIS and aggression of Israeli regime, not it's use of chemical gasses. Saddam also used chemical gasses against it's people, and ingredients of those gasses were purchased from US.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T09:19:09.4634162Z
@lightseeker Yeah, so what?
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T09:20:40.9279751Z
You don't simply stop supporting a country because of ideological differences.
Heterodox says2016-07-27T09:23:32.6872781Z
@triangle.128k You can't have a war without declaring war, unless done so >illegally<.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T09:32:03.8216294Z
Yeah, we declared wars illegally. Your point is...?
Heterodox says2016-07-27T09:40:50.2470039Z
@triangle.128k You brought up war as being a necessary evil, I don't know why you brought it up. You mentioned killing civilians as being unavoidable. Killing isn't murder unless it's unlawful. If the war is illegal, is the killing? Again, I don't know why you brought up war, but you did...
lightseeker says2016-07-27T10:08:39.1521245Z
Judge people and countries and regimes by what they do, not what they claim to do. Killing people unjustly and then shouting "justice", doesn't make your actions just. Silencing the consensus of the world, and killing innocent people and saying you have freedom of speech, doesn't make it true.
lightseeker says2016-07-27T10:20:30.8058318Z
The UN itself is against human rights. Otherwise it wouldn't give veto "right" to some countries.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T10:27:34.3547549Z
@lightseeker If not the UN, then why do all other human rights organizations point out Iran's awful record? Also, big deal war is war. Some occasional deaths happen in wars, blah blah blah. That's literally all you fucking complain about. And repeating myself, the US and Americans will not permanentely feel guilt over a few mistakes in the past.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T10:29:54.6482528Z
Also, read this report before you continue pulling stuff out of your ass: https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/iran/report-iran/
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T10:30:56.5726431Z
The authorities continued to severely restrict freedoms of expression, association and assembly. They blocked Facebook, Twitter and other social media websites, closed or suspended media outlets including the Zanan monthly women’s magazine, jammed foreign satellite television stations, arrested and imprisoned journalists and online and other critics, and suppressed peaceful protests. In August, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology announced the second phase of “intelligent filtering” of websites deemed to have socially harmful consequences, with the support of a foreign company. The authorities continued efforts to create a “national internet” that could be used to further impede access to information via the internet, and arrested and prosecuted those who used social media to express dissent.1 In June, a spokesperson for the judiciary said that the authorities had arrested five people for “anti-revolutionary” activities using social media, and five others for “acts against decency in cyber-space”. Opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi, Zahra Rahnavard and Mehdi Karoubi remained under house arrest without charge or trial. Scores of prisoners of conscience continued to be detained or were serving prison sentences for peacefully exercising their human rights. They included journalists, artists, writers, lawyers, trade unionists, students, women’s and minority rights activists, human rights defenders and others. Under the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, individuals convicted of multiple charges must serve only the lengthiest single sentence, but judges are required to impose sentences that exceed the statutory maximum for any single offence when they convict defendants of more than three crimes. This has resulted in the authorities bringing multiple spurious charges against some peaceful critics as a means to ensure a lengthy prison term.2 The authorities continued to suppress peaceful protests. On 22 July, police temporarily arrested scores and dispersed thousands of teachers who gathered outside Parliament in the capital, Tehran, to protest against the authorities’ harassment of teachers engaged in trade union activities and related protests, and demand the release of prominent trade unionists, including Ismail Abdi, who remained in detention.
lightseeker says2016-07-27T10:33:34.3784783Z
@triangle.128k a few mistakes in the past?! If US is doing as it has been doing, then it's still responsible and accountable. Your support of Saudi Arabia in it's aggression against Yemen shows that US policy hasn't changed. And those human right organization say what about Israeli regime taking Palestinian's lands and driving them out of their country and killing them? And did you know that Saudi Arabia is appointed as the head of human rights council in UN?! What a sh!Tty joke your system is.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T10:41:27.7058888Z
We don't like Saudi Arabia, we're simply economic partners. Also, you continously point out things done by countries but NONE OF THEM ARE THE FUCKING US. God, you're so thick headed. Also, keep in mind that Palestine also does quite a bit of things to Israel, so it isn't a one-sided fight. Both regimes are at fault. Now quit pointing out attrocities that we hold NO RESPONSIBILITY over.
tajshar2k says2016-07-27T13:51:23.2825369Z
Of course, Lets ignore the 100 million people the Islamic empires of the past had murdered, and only focus on what America has done.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T13:56:47.0626124Z
@tajshar2k +10000000
BirdieMachine says2016-07-27T14:03:43.2732804Z
The US Has Invaded 71 Nations Since 1776 – By Dr Gideon Polya 05 July, 2013 Countercurrents.Org (1) American Indian nations (1776 onwards, American Indian Genocide; 1803, Louisiana Purchase; 1844, Indians banned from east of the Mississippi; 1861 onwards, California genocide; 1890, Lakota Indians massacre), (2) Mexico (1836-1846; 1913; 1914-1918; 1923), (3) Nicaragua (1856-1857; 1894; 1896; 1898; 1899; 1907; 1910; 1912-1933; 1981-1990), (4) American forces deployed against Americans (1861-1865, Civil War; 1892; 1894; 1898; 1899-1901; 1901; 1914; 1915; 1920-1921; 1932; 1943; 1967; 1968; 1970; 1973; 1992; 2001), (5), Argentina (1890), (6), Chile (1891; 1973), (7) Haiti (1891; 1914-1934; 1994; 2004-2005), (8) Hawaii (1893-), (9) China (1895-1895; 1898-1900; 1911-1941; 1922-1927; 1927-1934; 1948-1949; 1951-1953; 1958), (10) Korea (1894-1896; 1904-1905; 1951-1953), (11) Panama (1895; 1901-1914; 1908; 1912; 1918-1920; 1925; 1958; 1964; 1989-), (12) Philippines (1898-1910; 1948-1954; 1989; 2002-), (13) Cuba (1898-1902; 1906-1909; 1912; 1917-1933; 1961; 1962), (14) Puerto Rico (1898-; 1950; ); (15) Guam (1898-), (16) Samoa (1899-), (17) Honduras (1903; 1907; 1911; 1912; 1919; 1924-1925; 1983-1989), (18) Dominican Republic (1903-1904; 1914; 1916-1924; 1965-1966), (19) Germany (1917-1918; 1941-1945; 1948; 1961), (20) Russia (1918-1922), (21) Yugoslavia (1919; 1946; 1992-1994; 1999), (22) Guatemala (1920; 1954; 1966-1967), (23) Turkey (1922), (24) El Salvador (1932; 1981-1992), (25) Italy (1941-1945); (26) Morocco (1941-1945), (27) France (1941-1945), (28) Algeria (1941-1945), (29) Tunisia (1941-1945), (30) Libya (1941-1945; 1981; 1986; 1989; 2011), (31) Egypt (1941-1945; 1956; 1967; 1973; 2013), (32) India (1941-1945), (33) Burma (1941-1945), (34) Micronesia (1941-1945), (35) Papua New Guinea (1941-1945), (36) Vanuatu (1941-1945), (37) Austria (1941-1945), (38) Hungary (1941-1945), (39) Japan (1941-1945), (40) Iran (1946; 1953; 1980; 1984; 1987-1988; ), (41) Uruguay (1947), (42) Greece (1947-1949), (43) Vietnam (1954; 1960-1975), (44) Lebanon (1958; 1982-1984), (45) Iraq (1958; 1963; 1990-1991; 1990-2003; 1998; 2003-2011), (46) Laos (1962-), (47) Indonesia (1965), (48) Cambodia (1969-1975; 1975), (49) Oman (1970), (50) Laos (1971-1973), (51) Angola (1976-1992), (52) Grenada (1983-1984), (53) Bolivia (1986; ), (54) Virgin Islands (1989), (55) Liberia (1990; 1997; 2003), (56) Saudi Arabia (1990-1991), (57) Kuwait (1991), (58) Somalia (1992-1994; 2006), (59) Bosnia (1993-), (60) Zaire (Congo) (1996-1997), (61) Albania (1997), (62) Sudan (1998), (63) Afghanistan (1998; 2001-), (64) Yemen (2000; 2002-), (65) Macedonia (2001), (66) Colombia (2002-), (67) Pakistan (2005-), (68) Syria (2008; 2011-), (69) Uganda (2011), (70) Mali (2013), (71) Niger (2013). List of Countries invaded or overthrown by the US Regimes. US is the terrorist.
lightseeker says2016-07-27T15:26:10.8000953Z
@triangle.128k none of them are the US? Even the ones that sanctioned Iraq and caused the death of more than 500000 children, or burned Vietnam's villages to the ground with napalm bombs, or dropped Nukes in Japan or were the first country to use almost every weapon against humans that it's usage was later banned? And as I said, the history is changed. Type genocides of 20th century in google, and you wont find the genocide of 9 million Persians by the British in WW1. Type how many Jews died in holocaust, and you'll find the numbers going from 6 to 20 millions, while Germans could only get their hands on around 600000 Jews who lived in Germany and Poland, most of which were alive after WWII. So you fabricate stories about Muslims and change history in a way that would benefit your satanic goals.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T15:30:36.1611983Z
You ignored my argument on Japan, dumba$$. War is war and people will die in war, that's just an unfortunate aftermath. Iraq wouldn't have sanctions if it weren't for their absurd government at the time. I would go in depth on justifying the Vietnam war too, but you're too much of a brainwashed fool to listen to any point I make. You didn't even respond to my debate request on human rights in the US vs Iran.
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T15:33:00.0271649Z
You can't expect us to feel guilt over things we did a while ago, because Iran did pretty messed up things in the past too. The US banned slavery BEFORE Iran did actually, and Iran has gotten itself involved in wars too. You're a brainwashed fool. We are not feeling eternal guilt over mistakes in the past despite you wanting us too. You are also too blinded to not recognize the human right violations in your own country, with Iran's absurd government that uses torture, censorship, persecution of minorities, etc.
lightseeker says2016-07-27T15:35:33.3690013Z
You mean you want me to find logic in the words of a brainwashed fool who'd try to justify usage of nuclear bombs against a country that was ready to be surrendered or napalm bombs against civilian villagers?
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T15:37:32.4084029Z
The communist vietnamese government was worse than whatever the US did in the war. And like I said, the bombs were NEEDED to stop the brutal Japanese empire
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T15:38:14.2484075Z
And again, why should we feel eternal guilt for things done in the past? Please answer.
lightseeker says2016-07-27T16:34:52.4070155Z
What US did in that war, was using chemical agents to clear out the jungles which lead to all kinds of disease to Vietnamese people, and destroying almost all of the villages of south Vietnam. It was way worse than anything Vietnamese government could do. And it wasn't done because Vietnamese regime was bad to its people (because Saudi Arabia is bad to it's people, yet US is supporting it), it was done because communism was shown bad at the time, and US wanted to seize the opportunity and get a foothold in the region.
lightseeker says2016-07-27T16:37:11.3512274Z
And you should feed guilt about what you've done in the past. And if you're doing as you'd done in the past, then you're in no position to talk about human rights and peace and justice.
tajshar2k says2016-07-27T19:10:40.2560131Z
@lightseeker With that logic, you shouldn't even be commenting here, since your people are the biggest mass murderers of history.
Black-Jesus says2016-07-27T19:31:46.2227127Z
@lightseeker, you say that triangle should feel bad for what he has done. But something tells me that triangle wasn't in charge of Agent Orange. I mean, whatever happened to personal accountability?
triangle.128k says2016-07-27T19:33:25.0649463Z
@lightseeker Then why aren't you forever in guilt for all the atrocities you've done since the beginning of Persian civilization?
lightseeker says2016-07-27T19:48:38.2792002Z
@tajshar2k we're the biggest mass murderers of history?! Give examples please. Something that tops vaporizing more than a hundred thousand innocent people with Nuclear bombs, or burning innocent people with incendiary bombs, or supporting people like Saddam Hussein or Suharto or using veto "right" to silence the consensus of the world against the Zionist regime who killed tens of thousands of innocent people and drove them out of their homes or supporting Burma government after the genocide they commit against Muslim minority of that country.
lightseeker says2016-07-27T19:51:00.1309095Z
@black he's defending the US government. When I say you, when addressing him, I'm talking about US government.
lightseeker says2016-07-27T19:53:06.2717740Z
@triangle.128k atrocities done by Persian civilization? Like what?
tajshar2k says2016-07-27T20:58:40.5582319Z
https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/
lightseeker says2016-07-28T01:59:01.2924545Z
@tajshar2k simply pointing to an article doesn't prove anything. Those numbers should be cross referenced with actual historical facts to find their validity, which is your duty since you mentioned that. Also, what ISIS is doing right now, is written in the name of Islam. Yet they aren't Muslim. And what Umayyad Caliphate or Abbasid Caliphate did in the name of Islam for centuries, was first and foremost, to remove our true leaders which are our Imams from the seats of power, and prison and kill them, and then do as they wanted in the name of Islam. Want true Islam, read about it here: https://www.al-islam.org/richest-treasure-imam-ali/introduction
tajshar2k says2016-07-28T02:08:24.3688060Z
@Lightseeker All you are doing is giving excuses. Killing a person is killing a person. Do you expect me to write a paragraph explaining the historical context in which this occurred? Are you telling me that all these were justifiable murders? What about the Jews in Medina? Was Muhammad ethnically cleansing the Jews population justified? Muslims believe what Muhammad does is objectively correct, so there is no point discussing that. Numerous intelligent people have already debunked the atrocities brought by Islam, so It's a waste of my time explaining this to you.
lightseeker says2016-07-28T02:17:04.2825967Z
@tajshar2k. As I said, that's just a site claiming thing without proving them. If you want to base your case on that, you should be able to prove it first. And about Muhammad killing Jews in Medina, history shows that Muhammad forgave the Jews who had broken their non-aggression treaty with Muhammad and had helped Muslim's enemies or had hands in killing Muslims themselves. Only one story exists about Jews being killed My Muhammad, which is told by a Jewish man, who was a survivor of a tribe that he said were all killed by Muhammad, and has a lot of inconsistencies, and goes against the peaceful image of Muhammad that exists in our historical and provable records. And again, prove your claims when you make them.
tajshar2k says2016-07-28T19:02:29.3547612Z
It is already proven. You need to go to the source cited, and verify it for yourself. I know you won't do that, since it goes against your narrative, but whatever. You keep using the word historical and provable, but why should I take your account as the real one? Do you ask the Nazis about their records on the Halocaust? Most logical people will say no, so unless you prove that your version is accurate, I disagree with you. *Hint, It's actually impossible to prove it.* Also, can you source where it shows all the people America has killed? Thanks. I'm actually interested in your findings.
triangle.128k says2016-07-28T19:05:34.1475525Z
@tajshar2k I tell him these same things... All he responds with is nonsense and ridicilous claims.
triangle.128k says2016-07-28T19:09:32.6377011Z
All lightseeker can come up with is wars the US fought recently. He has no clue either what the US did the benefit the world, but mention it to him and he'll say "US KILLED INNOCENT CHILDREN IN IRAQ" as a counter argument. The Iranian state controlled media really is good at brainwashing their population, aren't they? He even ignores nearly EVERY point I've made about Iran's violations against liberty and human rights.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.