kaz1
et tu
Holy fuck this thread has moved fast.
Also there might be more protests this weekend lol.
Also there might be more protests this weekend lol.
It's all a little bit silly.Holy fuck this thread has moved fast.
Also there might be more protests this weekend lol.
But entertaining!It's all a little bit silly.
Not enoughBut entertaining!
Also, how many people have you banned in this thread so far?
I consider all far right extremist islamic groups to be concerning.Out of curiousity... Do you consider far right islamist groups who operate in Europe to be on par with Hizb Ut-Tahrir, more concerning or less concerning?
If there is ONE thing Islam is incompatible with, it is moral relativism.One must first understand that 1400 years ago was very different than now,
you must have such a rich, fulfilling life outside of bosNot enough
Im not gonna bother with idiots like u.If there is ONE thing Islam is incompatible with, it is moral relativism.
My bad. I meant anti Islamist groups. Can you provide an answerI consider all far right extremist islamic groups to be concerning.
Yeah pragmatically speaking limiting speech so people can't threaten others in a serious way isn't really that much of a huge loss. But in terms of being 100% consistent on an ideological level, I think it would be a divergence from total free speech.I kind of agree, but at the same time I'm also torn because no-one reads a legitimate death threat and just shrug and say "well, he's allowed to say that but he won't ever hurt me because the law says he can't." If someone says "stop saying such and such or I will kill you" and the threat is legitimate then plenty of people would shut up because of that threat. Under your rules this would seem to be be perfectly fair. So the idea that someone can use their freedom of speech to destroy my freedom of speech is repugnant to me. Yes, I realise the only way that you can in turn stop the person that was originally making the threats is to silence them and this creates a contradiction, but I prefer to think of it mostly as "you have this right, but if you misuse it the state reserves the right to take that away from you." That can create a slippery slope to all sorts of populist or dictatorial silencing, but as long as it was clearly spelt out to begin with as "freedom of speech unless that speech inhibits the freedom of others" then I think it can maintain internal consistency without leading to a totalitarian outcome (in liberal democracies anyway).
It's pretty fucking great.you must have such a rich, fulfilling life outside of bos
It's probably a hard one to enforce as well, in terms of drawing a line.Yeah pragmatically speaking limiting speech so people can't threaten others in a serious way isn't really that much of a huge loss. But in terms of being 100% consistent on an ideological level, I think it would be a divergence from total free speech.
No, really. Everything in the Koran came from a time much different to ours, and yet a majority of muslims want the teachings of the koran to be incorporated into the law.Im not gonna bother with idiots like u.
Yeah thats right. The laws of islam havent changed for over 1400 years. I dont see the point your trying to make?No, really. Everything in the Koran came from a time much different to ours, and yet a majority of muslims want the teachings of the koran to be incorporated into the law.
You can't just say something doesn't matter because it was from a different time, because the laws of Islam are absolute and do not properly change just because society is different.
I think we could make space elevators from your brain.Yeah thats right. The laws of islam havent changed for over 1400 years. I dont see the point your trying to make?
lol seriouslyYeah thats right. The laws of islam havent changed for over 1400 years. I dont see the point your trying to make?