BF2S Forums Mosque to be built by Ground Zero?

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

I dunno I am betting you karma'ed Uzi for his "credible source". Lie to me and tell me you didn't lmao!!!

Actually, I haven't.

I might do so now though. Of course this will demonstrate that I'm not lying and that you're just wrong, again.

Wow you didn't? I am shocked, what stopped ya? Did I get to discredit his "research" and "BRILLIANT POST" before you could karma him or something?

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-03 13:24:23)

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Actually, I haven't.

I might do so now though. Of course this will demonstrate that I'm not lying and that you're just wrong, again.

Wow you didn't? I am shocked, what stopped ya? Did I get to discredit him before you could karma him or something?

Where did you discredit him?

I've never seen you discredit anyone but yourself.

Oh I forgot. You do not agree with me therefore I am wrong. I forgot the Bf2S forums logic tree. Sorry.

also take note I said his research and his post, I did not say him personally. Actually I did, but I edited after I read it becausethat was not my intention.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-03 13:30:42)

lowing wrote:

Ahh then it must be the religious act part and the racial act part that you should be referring. Sad really, iti s against the law to hate a religion? Holy Shit, it is worse than I thought. lol.

How many Muslims have been arrested for thinking negatively about gays and womens equality?

As I pointed out this law was the one used to arrest Abu Hamza. Obviously no Muslims have been arrested for "thinking negatively about gays and womens equality" - because you can't get arrested for thinking something. There have been Muslims arrested for inciting racial hatred though.


Interestingly, academics who study racism often tend to applaud the Islamic world throughout history for being exceedingly tolerant when it came to race.

Something else you never seem to take into account is that there are numerous countries where Muslims have a good quality of life and these countries are not the hot beds of terrorism and oppression that you seem to associate with Islam. How do you account for that?

11 Bravo wrote:

Beduin wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

nyc is a shithole and should be ignored tbh.

do you also feel that muslims are out there to convert/kill you?

ya thats it

See lowing, that was not to hard, was it?

lowing wrote:

My guess would be the same consequences as having it present in the ME and Africa.

Explain, please... How?

Beduin wrote:

lowing wrote:

My guess would be the same consequences as having it present in the ME and Africa.

Explain, please... How?

lol.

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ahh then it must be the religious act part and the racial act part that you should be referring. Sad really, iti s against the law to hate a religion? Holy Shit, it is worse than I thought. lol.

How many Muslims have been arrested for thinking negatively about gays and womens equality?

C'mon admit it, you karma'ed Uzi for his credible source" and "research" didn't you? lol

lowing this is VERY FUCKING SIMPLE law here. the precedent behind racist, sexist and all other forms of discriminative law are to promote EQUALITY for all people and to stamp-out DISCRIMINATION. the fact that islam is a religion does not mean that our law makes it 'illegal' to hate a religion as a matter of personal, PRIVATE opinion; however, inciting hatred towards ALL MEMBERS of a religion (in speech, or in websites for example) is a CRIME because it encourages open and explicit DISCRIMINATION against an ENTIRE people based on their COLOUR, CREED or ETHNICITY. that is illegal and, i would hope you all of people being a hardcore conservative american, would appreciate that it's very important for laws like that to exist in order for everybody to have a free and fair, equal place in a democracy. it is not about the UK legislative protecting islam: the exact law that applies to 'islam hatred' was used against the cleric you linked earlier, Abu Hamza, for inciting race-hate against white people / christians / english nationals. so it's all fair game.

So basically, you can be arrested for speaking out against an unpopular topic, since pretty much anything worthy of social debate will no doubt be encompassed by a race, religion, sexual orintation, etc...! Nope I do not agree, free speech ( especially FACTUAL free speech) should not be against the law. It is opinion toward a relgion not toward a people. So, how many Islamic websites and clerics that has advocated sharia law in London been arrested?

I do not agree with the KKK but it would scare the hell outta me that our govt. could or would arrest them for their thoughts or expressing them.

In fact the court of public opinion has dealt with them quite nicely.

as i said, having a personal opinion is one thing - discussing it is fine, representing your views is also fine. you are entitled to an opinion. going one step further and trying to encourage others (i.e. to incite) to share your views, in an activist and mobilizing way (i.e. creating websites of mass discontent) and then throwing invective and abuse at the recipient of your 'views'... is another thing altogether. the law's role is to preserve everyone's equality and their personal liberty within a fair and just society: having a political or racial view is one thing, and that is not a crime: having a political or racial view and trying to organize mass-movements and spread (mis)information against an entire race/creed of people (i.e. doing something discriminatively, regardless of individuals) IS a crime, and for good reason.

the KKK are allowed their websites and their meetings and their views. i imagine as soon as those views start to become actively hostile and aggressive towards others, the police and law enforcement authorities step in- because other people's rights are being enroached upon and unfairly taken away. the KKK are allowed to march in america just as fringe-groups, extremists and radicals are allowed to march and represent non-orthodox, 'rebellious' views here, too. it's another matter entirely when that activity escalates a few levels and starts to become 'inciting hatred' in a way that affects or disrupts the public peace and private liberties of any-one group of people.

as i said this is ridiculously simple... put down your rhetoric and blind ideology for a second and just recognize the law's just-fairness.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-07-03 13:50:29)

Uzique wrote:

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing this is VERY FUCKING SIMPLE law here. the precedent behind racist, sexist and all other forms of discriminative law are to promote EQUALITY for all people and to stamp-out DISCRIMINATION. the fact that islam is a religion does not mean that our law makes it 'illegal' to hate a religion as a matter of personal, PRIVATE opinion; however, inciting hatred towards ALL MEMBERS of a religion (in speech, or in websites for example) is a CRIME because it encourages open and explicit DISCRIMINATION against an ENTIRE people based on their COLOUR, CREED or ETHNICITY. that is illegal and, i would hope you all of people being a hardcore conservative american, would appreciate that it's very important for laws like that to exist in order for everybody to have a free and fair, equal place in a democracy. it is not about the UK legislative protecting islam: the exact law that applies to 'islam hatred' was used against the cleric you linked earlier, Abu Hamza, for inciting race-hate against white people / christians / english nationals. so it's all fair game.

So basically, you can be arrested for speaking out against an unpopular topic, since pretty much anything worthy of social debate will no doubt be encompassed by a race, religion, sexual orintation, etc...! Nope I do not agree, free speech ( especially FACTUAL free speech) should not be against the law. It is opinion toward a relgion not toward a people. So, how many Islamic websites and clerics that has advocated sharia law in London been arrested?

I do not agree with the KKK but it would scare the hell outta me that our govt. could or would arrest them for their thoughts or expressing them.

In fact the court of public opinion has dealt with them quite nicely.

as i said, having a personal opinion is one thing - discussing it is fine, representing your views is also fine. you are entitled to an opinion. going one step further and trying to encourage others (i.e. to incite) to share your views, in an activist and mobilizing way (i.e. creating websites of mass discontent) and then throwing invective and abuse at the recipient of your 'views'... is another thing altogether. the law's role is to preserve everyone's equality and their personal liberty within a fair and just society: having a political or racial view is one thing, and that is not a crime: having a political or racial view and trying to organize mass-movements and spread (mis)information against an entire race/creed of people (i.e. doing something discriminatively, regardless of individuals) IS a crime, and for good reason.

the KKK are allowed their websites and their meetings and their views. i imagine as soon as those views start to become actively hostile and aggressive towards others, the police and law enforcement authorities step in- because other people's rights are being enroached upon and unfairly taken away. the KKK are allowed to march in america just as fringe-groups, extremists and radicals are allowed to march and represent non-orthodox, 'rebellious' views here, too. it's another matter entirely when that activity escalates a few levels and starts to become 'inciting hatred' in a way that affects or disrupts the public peace and private liberties of any-one group of people.

as i said this is ridiculously simple... put down your rhetoric and blind ideology for a second and just recognize the law's just-fairness.

relgionofpeace is a website that expresses its views, and uses Islam itself as its main source. you advocate shutting this down, he does not incite to riot, or hurt anyone not even Muslims. Yet you call him a Nazi ( unsubsransiated of course) a racist ( unsubstansiated of course) and advocate his censorship.basically you are full of shit.  If anything, YOU are the fuckin Nazi.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-03 13:55:17)

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

So, how many Islamic websites and clerics that has advocated sharia law in London been arrested?

For advocating Sharia law? None.

The Archbishop of Canterbury advocates using Sharia law in the UK.

Sharia law can be used in the UK - and is.

For inciting hatred towards other races, religions etc. several Islamic clerics have been arrested. Lots of neo-nazis too.

You don't seem to see the distinction between having and expressing opinions and trying to instill negative views about other groups in other people. They are different things.

there you go with the neo- nazi crap

What neo-nazi crap? All I did was to state that lots of neo-nazis have been arrested for breach of this law. They have. Here is an article from a mainstream broadsheet newspaper which illustrates that point for me:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr … 09533.html

And one from the sort of shitrag you may be more comfortable with:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … bsite.html

lowing wrote:

to be clear, do you actually have proof that these people belong to a Nazi party, ya know kinda like proof that these Islamic clerica are in fact Islamic clerics?

Read the articles.


I'd say they're neo-nazis.

lowing wrote:

ISLAM is doing more than its fair share to instil that hatred and negativity. Islam does little to promote the opposite. In fact the dancing in the streets by Muslims ( and no not extremists) regarding 911 and most other bombings does little to help their cause.

you are forgetting damn near all of the sources used against Islam COMES FROM FUCKIN ISLAM!!!

Of course they do dear.

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing wrote:

So basically, you can be arrested for speaking out against an unpopular topic, since pretty much anything worthy of social debate will no doubt be encompassed by a race, religion, sexual orintation, etc...! Nope I do not agree, free speech ( especially FACTUAL free speech) should not be against the law. It is opinion toward a relgion not toward a people. So, how many Islamic websites and clerics that has advocated sharia law in London been arrested?

I do not agree with the KKK but it would scare the hell outta me that our govt. could or would arrest them for their thoughts or expressing them.

In fact the court of public opinion has dealt with them quite nicely.

as i said, having a personal opinion is one thing - discussing it is fine, representing your views is also fine. you are entitled to an opinion. going one step further and trying to encourage others (i.e. to incite) to share your views, in an activist and mobilizing way (i.e. creating websites of mass discontent) and then throwing invective and abuse at the recipient of your 'views'... is another thing altogether. the law's role is to preserve everyone's equality and their personal liberty within a fair and just society: having a political or racial view is one thing, and that is not a crime: having a political or racial view and trying to organize mass-movements and spread (mis)information against an entire race/creed of people (i.e. doing something discriminatively, regardless of individuals) IS a crime, and for good reason.

the KKK are allowed their websites and their meetings and their views. i imagine as soon as those views start to become actively hostile and aggressive towards others, the police and law enforcement authorities step in- because other people's rights are being enroached upon and unfairly taken away. the KKK are allowed to march in america just as fringe-groups, extremists and radicals are allowed to march and represent non-orthodox, 'rebellious' views here, too. it's another matter entirely when that activity escalates a few levels and starts to become 'inciting hatred' in a way that affects or disrupts the public peace and private liberties of any-one group of people.

as i said this is ridiculously simple... put down your rhetoric and blind ideology for a second and just recognize the law's just-fairness.

relgionofpeace is a website that expresses its views, and uses Islam itself as its main source. you advocate shutting this down, he does not incite to riot, or hurt anyone not even Muslims. Yet you call him a Nazi ( unsubsransiated of course) a racist ( unsubstansiated of course) and advocate his censorship.basically you are full of shit.  If anything, YOU are the fuckin Nazi.

lowing, the website he ran before religionofpeace.org WAS shut-down for INCITING RACE HATRED - the federal authorities (the FREEDOM of AMERICA authorities) and his internet service provider disabled his hosting and took his views offline. now, if the us govt. considers the KKK to be a valid platform and entitled to their freedom-of-speech... what does that say about your man? KKK stay online, yet he gets shut down. this has nothing to do with english law or me being a 'nazi' (lol i love when it's used in that sense in arguments... godwin's law).

err have you been reading mine (and bertster's) posts for these last 3 pages?

the domain is down and you have to view it on web-archives. it's the most glaringly-bias, extreme-right website ive seen since... the BNP.

and the godwin's law shit was used because you resorted to that lame, old insult - "you're being a nazi!" meaning im being repressive or authoritarian, or rather- our laws are that way. you didn't mean "you're a nationalist socialist!" or "you're a fascist!" - whereas where i have used the term (neo)-nazi, it has been to describe exactly those ideologies.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-07-03 14:19:17)

how exactly is a "I do not accept" not a dismissal?

Uzique wrote:

not accepting something can be the basis of a refutation, not a blind-dismissal...

come on, you do fucking law. you don't know your rhetoric? not familiar with how to structure an argument?

doesn't matter who you aim it at... backing it up is hopefully the next logical step...

I guess you think lowing is worth debating