|
Post by mouse on Aug 13, 2010 14:30:12 GMT
Mouse is opposed to individual freedom within the law. Are you? . actually i am not..i am aposed to the argument anything goes within the law.....to use the law as an excuse ""its legal so i can"" is to take away all responsibilities for any action as long as its legal..... ""I'll leave the moral crusades to the moralists. I'm interested in politics, not morals, specifically in political philosophy underpinning the state."" i dont think you can seperate the two and that in attempting to seperate is where the liberal agenda has made things a thousand times worse...by giving the green light to selfish indulegence at any cost as long as its legal legal is not necessarily the arbiter of what is good but only of what is allowable..and laws change...as do social attitudes jumbo wrote """stupidity SHOULD be a crime. anything that you do that actually adversely affects someone else should be a crime. the reality is that those who choose to eat a pound of cake a day, or live at mcdonal's, ARE adversely affecting YOU. those who choose to drink and drive, use drugs, etc, ARE adversely affecting you personally. you like to bitch that people shouldn't have the right to intentionally offend someone, even though that does not hurt anyone, yet you want to allow those who so obviously harm you to go merrily on their way.""" and while i am not sure stupidity should be a crime...there most certainly should be an acounting for stupidity..a taking of responsibility..after all you say you want less state interference...yet liberalism has caused the state to interfeer ....in various ways because of the liberal agenda
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 13, 2010 14:46:20 GMT
the failed liberal state has failed when the freedoms are constantly abused.....abuse is not freedom and while it maybe inevitable that numbers abuse...a realistic state would bring people to task for that abuse....and realise that in abusing their freedoms these people were also depriving others and abusing their freedoms .... liberalism only works when ALL obey the ground rules i wouldnt replace freedom with anything ..i would add to that freedom by an enforceable sociatal expectation that in experiencing freedom..NONE had the right to deprive by their actions others of their freedoms.....without their freedoms being strictly curtailed......and without all the liberal excuses and 2nd chances etc ....
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 13, 2010 15:02:57 GMT
I find it interesting that the people who would cry loudest about freedom if it were taken away from us are the very ones that want to close down the freedoms I currently enjoy I can wear what I like (within the bounds of decency) I can shop whenever I like Nobody can harm me without fearing the law I doubt I will ever be locked up without anyone telling me why I may worship whichever God I choose or none Why would they want to take these from me, do you think? you can wear what you like within or without the bounds of decency....but you must give others the right to coment on what you wear and if you look like a hooker or a shrouded corpse they have a right to coment.....and treat you acordingly...rights go both ways but when some thing you wear becomes a threat or a political statement which threatens their right to freedom..it is their right to try to disuade or get the state to forbid that which threatens their welfare you can shop where ever you wish....PROVIDING you have the monies to pay for their goods and are not relying on some one else to pay your acounts...be it the tax payer or the banks,,, to have what you cannot aford is inherently dishonest no one can harm you without fearing the law....yes they can...they can make the streets ubsafe,,they can intimidate by various means and do so...and we see the police and law unable to do very much about it I doubt I will ever be locked up without anyone telling me why...i would hope that remains the case..although in the last 10 yrs there have been cases I may worship whichever God I choose or none...again one hopes this remains the case..however there are those who would happily see this freedom go down the pan and have ensured even in the uk that the freedom to choose has come to a full stop ..which is why certain groups must never be empowered or have a say in our national executive...in spite of the liberals who cannot see beyond the nose on their faces
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Aug 13, 2010 15:21:00 GMT
the failed liberal state has failed when the freedoms are constantly abused.....abuse is not freedom and while it maybe inevitable that numbers abuse...a realistic state would bring people to task for that abuse....and realise that in abusing their freedoms these people were also depriving others and abusing their freedoms .... liberalism only works when ALL obey the ground rules i wouldnt replace freedom with anything ..i would add to that freedom by an enforceable sociatal expectation that in experiencing freedom..NONE had the right to deprive by their actions others of their freedoms.....without their freedoms being strictly curtailed......and without all the liberal excuses and 2nd chances etc .... Which liberal states have failed? The rest of your post is just you backtracking. You're just basically rewording the harm principle which is at the centre of liberal philosophy. In fact, would it be fair to say that you don't think Muslims should have the same rights and freedoms as other people in short?
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 13, 2010 17:11:38 GMT
This happened a lot in the 1800s - except that the girls did not get a council flat or anything else. It was an economically liberal time, but not at all socially liberal. The girls - and usually only the girls - were punished for their transgression; if they were lucky, they could go home, to a very crowded house or room; if not, they went on the streets. STD rates were very high then, as well.
Now, is that better than it is now?
Read My Secret Life by "Walter" (Maybe Henry Ashbee.)
(But maybe it was all the opium they used to take back then; though, oddly enough, "Walter" doesn't mention opium even once.)
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 14, 2010 0:49:40 GMT
I certainly don't have any objection to Riotgrrl and Aubrey having their own opinions which are different from mine.
I just feel that Muslims don't have anything positive to contribute to our western governments/societies. They keep to themselves, they are taught to despise unbelievers, they consider their Mullahs to have greater authority than the government of any western country. Who needs them?
As I've said before, the bottom line is that there is no place for Islam in America or Western Europe. If you fight for their freedom, Riotgrrl, you are fighting for your own enslavement.
They would vote for Sharia Law. They would require you to conform to their religious standards. They don't believe in separation of church and state. They think the Mullahs should rule and every one of us citizens should bow to the Quran. This includes you Riotgrrl.
They have no loyalty to the UK, the USA, or any government. Their loyalty, their only loyalty, is to Islam.
The problem with you liberals (Riotgrrl, Aubrey, etc.) is that you are in denial of the facts. You want the world to be the way you think it should be rather than the way it actually is. You have idealism as your core principle. That's all well and good when your idealism lines up with reality. In this case it does not. Deny all you want but this is a fact.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 14, 2010 0:53:34 GMT
By the way, I might add that this thread is about the Islamization of Europe. It's obviously an interesting topic because there are twenty pages of postings so far. RV has complained about postings centered on Islam. If he's not interested in this topic then he should visit other threads and stay away from this one.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Aug 14, 2010 5:10:42 GMT
It seems that most immigrants from Muslim countries either lose their Muslim heritage or were non-religious to begin with. The minority of practicing Muslims at least in Germany are the most law biding of the Muslim world immigrants.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Aug 14, 2010 7:14:39 GMT
By the way, I might add that this thread is about the Islamization of Europe. It's obviously an interesting topic because there are twenty pages of postings so far. Twenty pages of posts which mostly reiterate the same scare stories without any evidence to back them up. Interesting? I don't think so!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 14, 2010 7:54:02 GMT
well some of you may not find it interesting...but some of us do and one of the most interesting things is that those who deny the islamisation are not able to deny the huge numbers of mosques..muslims..muslim schools..halal dinners being forced on non muslim school children the fact that fgm is a problem in europe now ..as are the numbers of forced marriages..terrorism..clashes with the police..ghettos...attacks on jews ..face coverings and sundry other things which didnt exist in the uk or europe untill comparativly recently
|
|
|
Post by jean on Aug 14, 2010 8:00:55 GMT
...attacks on jews ... which didnt exist in the uk or europe untill comparativly recently Are you quite sure about that?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 14, 2010 8:02:30 GMT
they should have the same rights under the law....rather than more rights as they have now they should not have the right to cover their face in public they should not have the right to demand special privilages[food/prayer rooms/exemptions from classes/uniforms etc etc they should not have the right to special treatment out of the public purse[housing/loos etc they should not have the rights to seperate courts..or special treatment by the media etc etc
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 14, 2010 8:05:27 GMT
lawdy aubrey..human beings are suposed to improve not go backward...and its still the girls who are punished for transgressions but seemingly you have missed the point entirely...
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 14, 2010 8:06:53 GMT
I They would vote for Sharia Law. They would require you to conform to their religious standards. They don't believe in separation of church and state. They think the Mullahs should rule and every one of us citizens should bow to the Quran. This includes you Riotgrrl. They have no loyalty to the UK, the USA, or any government. Their loyalty, their only loyalty, is to Islam. The problem with you liberals (Riotgrrl, Aubrey, etc.) is that you are in denial of the facts. You want the world to be the way you think it should be rather than the way it actually is. You have idealism as your core principle. That's all well and good when your idealism lines up with reality. In this case it does not. Deny all you want but this is a fact. idealism is fine in abstract..
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Aug 14, 2010 9:37:31 GMT
they should have the same rights under the law....rather than more rights as they have now they should not have the right to cover their face in public they should not have the right to demand special privilages[food/prayer rooms/exemptions from classes/uniforms etc etc they should not have the right to special treatment out of the public purse[housing/loos etc they should not have the rights to seperate courts..or special treatment by the media etc etc But these are not uniquely Islamic rights. We all have the right to cover our faces in public. Many religious minorities get special treatment; there are Cof E schools, Jewish schools, catholic schools, Christian chapels at airports, kosher food for Jewish kids, etc. I agree that no religious group should have any special rights, but at the moment they all do. They do not have a right to separate courts. That's just rubbish. The media in the UK are independent of Govt and, apart from stuff like rights to privacy and libel laws, nobody has any particular rights to be represented in a particular way in the media.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 14, 2010 10:21:26 GMT
lawdy aubrey..human beings are suposed to improve not go backward...and its still the girls who are punished for transgressions but seemingly you have missed the point entirely... Wasn't your point how bad things are these days? My post was meant to show that we have improved, and improved because of liberalism. Pregnant girls are not forced onto the streets - weren't you objecting to them getting council houses and benefits? That is surely a good thing. Preferable - much preferable - to the non liberal alternative, anyway. The victorian way of dealing with too many babies was to chuck them in the Thames (in London anyway). Thanks to things like welfare and council housing (and liberalism in general), we don't really have that now. People are always going to do things that others don't like - especially young people. That's what they do. In Malmesbury, some people complained about local kids sitting in a little stone shelter and drinking cider. The local Police Chief said, "Look, kids have been doing that, in that same shelter, for hundreds of years. We're not going to stop them now." Intimidate? How? We used to have kids sitting and smoking on our stairs (up to our flat) which people thought was intimidating; but if you were polite, treated them like human beings, they were ok - they all got out of your way. I have never had a muslim coming to our door trying to convert me; we get xtians of various kinds all the time. On the other hand, the muslim family who used to live next door once came round with some lovely little pastries with which they were celebrating the end of Ramadam. I thought that was really sweet of them. (The pastries were nice, as well.)
|
|
|
Post by jean on Aug 14, 2010 11:24:57 GMT
...they should not have the right to demand...exemptions from classes... You should be grateful - that one gets atheists out of RE classes as well as Jews and Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 14, 2010 14:17:30 GMT
...they should not have the right to demand...exemptions from classes... You should be grateful - that one gets atheists out of RE classes as well as Jews and Muslims. why but it isnt only RE classes..its sex education..history..geology..singing and yes the attacks onnjews in europe have gone up with the numbers of muslims entering the various countries the netherlands and uk and especially denmark
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 14, 2010 14:19:35 GMT
...attacks on jews ... which didnt exist in the uk or europe untill comparativly recently Are you quite sure about that? my bad explanation..the attacks on jews in europe had virtually died out..it had become a ..non..problem...now once more a problem exists..
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 14, 2010 14:24:31 GMT
the beeb does a great job of one sided reporting
|
|