Board 8 > Politics Topic 86: Hawaii, Where Everything's Made Up And The Votes Don't Matter

(+) Yeah! (+)

Anyone who follows 100% of the commands of the quran is a dangerous lunatic.
Anyone who follows 100% of the commands of the bible is a dangerous lunatic.

Does anyone here object to either statement?
---

Come now. All you leftists are crazy. All you need to do is tell muslims that their religion is evil and terrible and they'll stop practicing it! Everyone knows that, 100% success rate!

(I'm pretty sure that this never ever works, and if anything just makes things worse)
---

Wanglicious posted...

...also you again are dialing it back to Muslims and their countries when the issue raised in the first place is how the left refuses to address issues of certain negative religious practices found within Islam. you have yet to tackle that very specific concern.

you're going after everything else but that.

Hey Muslims, stoning people who commit adultery is bad. Please don't do that anymore. That violates their rights.
---

I'll be sure to get right on telling Anna, Muslim classmate of mine who has never hurt a fly that I know of that her beliefs are wicked and she needs to knock off the whole stoning people to death thing *right now*
---

I have had communication issues with Wang before, so just to do due dilligence, I'll ask the room: can anyone re-word any points of his that you think I'm not addressing or misunderstand?
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Because that's not the issue.

no, that's quite literally the issue.
like, that's the topic where this sprung out of, the left's treatment over criticism of Islam and how instead of doing so, various sects will just handwave it, simply label people to dismiss them, or go "Islam and ___" instead of just talking about just the religion, acknowledging the negative practices, and going from there.

that's the actual topic.
---

charmander6000 posted...

Eddv posted...

But was it brought up that Ahmadinejad was ruled ineligible to run for president in Iran?

No it hasn't.

Being President in Iran only makes you the 14th most powerful person there though.

Well one of those shitposting dudes was happy about it for some reason so i just figured id bring it up.

Also in not sure why this islam discussion keeps going into ideals and generalizations.

The main problem with Islam is the ascendancy of Wahhabism which is 100% our fauly no matter who has been in the whote house

The main problem with people joining ISIS is that people treat islamic people like shit even when they are running from Wahhabism so they join up with ISIS. its a vicious cycle. Thats the ascendant strain of islam that the Saudi royals protect. It says that all those who dont practice strict islam are heathens and infidels and we are their allies and have propped them up for like 100 years. And then we yell at Iran for funding counter insurgent groups and its all hyper complex and people rightly just don't want to deal with it especially over there.

In addition you will find that villifying all brown people makes it REALLY hard to fight terrorism. Law enforcement needs an environment in which people feel comfortable coming forward and collaborating and when you villify ALL muslims whem you villify ALL immigrants you make that so much harder. This is why the trump way is guaranteed to be worse.

I also find it rich that certain people in this topic only care about feminism and women whrn its in the context of islam though.
---

i'm not sure why saying "islam and ___" is necessarily a bad thing.
---

Wanglicious posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Because that's not the issue.

no, that's quite literally the issue.
like, that's the topic where this sprung out of, the left's treatment over criticism of Islam and how instead of doing so, various sects will just handwave it, simply label people to dismiss them, or go "Islam and ___" instead of just talking about just the religion, acknowledging the negative practices, and going from there.

that's the actual topic.

The actual topic is the violent, radical extremists. The actual topic is how to deal with/prevent them. The actual topic is not making some national decree of "Islam is evil."

You don't have to tell the average Muslim that murdering innocent people is wrong. You're certainly not going to help anybody by saying "Islam is evil and Muslims want to kill you."
---

Wait, whatsup with Hawaii?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Okay. Any solutions?

increase law enforcement in those areas to return them to following the law of the country in which they reside. really simple solution.

There needs to be better law enforcement in any high/crime area. Saying "we can't send law enforcement in there because they are Muslims" (which is apparently what people are saying if I catch your drift, though I haven't personally seen it) is no better than saying "we have to send law enforcement in there BECAUSE they are Muslims" (Which is an attitude anyone can see with a few minutes of searching).

You haven't seen it because that whole "no go zone" thing isn't something that happens in this country. What started as a debate on what side better handles Muslim immigration devolved into us policing the world or them overriding our laws when they come here.
---

SwiftyDC posted...

Wait, whatsup with Hawaii?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/21/525050208/hawaii-tells-jeff-sessions-have-some-respect
---

SwiftyDC posted...

Wait, whatsup with Hawaii?

Jeff Sessions said it was just "some island" and a judge there shouldnt be able to halt the immigration order.
---

The tiny caption "An island in the Pacific" is really great
---

Oh, yeah I remember that. That was like a month ago.

Politics. I'm from Hawaii. **** Jeff Sessions.
---

Wanglicious posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Because that's not the issue.

no, that's quite literally the issue.
like, that's the topic where this sprung out of, the left's treatment over criticism of Islam and how instead of doing so, various sects will just handwave it, simply label people to dismiss them, or go "Islam and ___" instead of just talking about just the religion, acknowledging the negative practices, and going from there.

that's the actual topic.

Yeah the thing is that most of us disagree with your premise so whining about how we're not following it isn't gonna work. Nobody's dumb enough to fall for your trick here (I hope).
---

"Islam and ___" either dilutes or transfers the issue to something else. i get the desire to attach it to people quickly but that's already making a leap past the religion's beliefs and practices without making any judgments, comments, or having a conversation of any sort on any of that.

all that comes first.
then you can apply it with people. how relevant is this (best measured by support), for example. you absolutely first need to address the faith though as only after that can you address the people. the issue here is that the left simply has issue with that when it comes to identity politics, especially Islam. if the left would be more open to doing just that, talking about the religion, accepting that there are problems within the religion, things would be better. it should treat Islam the same way every other belief system or religion is treated: without protection or advocacy. just another thing. that's pretty simple as once you do that, you're on track to helping those who'd like to reform it and won't have gagged police forces.


it's a very simple and straightforward issue - the left's treatment of Islam.
yet despite being simple for some reason the opposing argument's focus has been on anything else.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

The actual topic is the violent, radical extremists.

...no, it's not.
read from page 7 in the last topic to now.
you are completely making that up because you don't know what you're talking about here. maria's arguments have largely been centered around the same idea too.

that is the topic and the constant deflection or hand waving from it isn't helping any.
---

I think I'm done here.

Wang, you literally came into this topic and said "We shouldn't be focusing on the extremists/terrorists, we should be focusing on how to vilify the entire religion first, and then move on from there."

If you can't figure out why people have issues with that, well... That's definitely your problem.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Wang, you literally came into this topic

....dude.
I LITERALLY STARTED THE FUCKING TOPIC YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT.

i am saying exactly what was said.
what are you doing.
---

Wanglicious posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Wang, you literally came into this topic

....dude.
I LITERALLY STARTED THE FUCKING TOPIC YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT.

i am saying exactly what was said.
what are you doing.

Holy crap how big is your head

We're not discussing the topic as YOU see it. We're discussing the problem as a whole. Just because you're too fucking stubborn or whatever to move on and see what people are talking about is not our problem

This topic. THIS topic. Politics Topic 86. Doesn't take rocket science to understand I'm not trying to play mental gymnastics with your stupid ass thoughts
---

Wanglicious posted...

all that comes first.
then you can apply it with people. how relevant is this (best measured by support), for example. you absolutely first need to address the faith though as only after that can you address the people.

...you're doing exactly this by saying "islam and ___"? for instance, if you say "the problem is islam and lunatics who follow radical ideas from the quran" you first address the religion (islam) and then the people (the lunatics).

not sure why when someone would bring up anything besides islam you'd make this "NO YOU'RE SWITCHING THE SUBJECT TO SOMETHING ELSE" accusation. bringing up multiple facets of islamic terrorism isn't "switching the subject to something that's not islam," it's doing a thorough analysis of the problem.
---

Having a deal of familiarity with this, I think I can safely say it's pathological and you are wasting your time
---

...you just went "you literally came into this topic about all this other stuff!"

except that's literally been the topic the whole time.
that's literally how it started and has repeatedly been the focus.

this isn't "discussing the topic as you see it," this is "the topic that was actually presented."
why the hell are you being so stubborn to remain ignorant here?
---

StealThisSheen posted...

This topic. THIS topic. Politics Topic 86. Doesn't take rocket science to understand I'm not trying to play mental gymnastics with your stupid ass thoughts

doesn't take rocket science to understand that Politics Topic 86 is continuing the discussion from the end of Politics Topic 85.

in fact, that's pretty fucking reasonable.
trying to play off the idea that these topics are completely isolated of one another? that's mental gymnastics with stupid ass thoughts.


like are you just trolling me here or something as you aren't making any sense.
---

You can't be a real person

You just can't
---

Wanglicious posted...

it should treat Islam the same way every other belief system or religion is treated: without protection or advocacy.

I don't follow.

All religions ARE treated with protection and advocacy, upto the point they infringe on the rights of others.
---

Wanglicious posted...

doesn't take rocket science to understand that Politics Topic 86 is continuing the discussion from the end of Politics Topic 85.

in fact, that's pretty fucking reasonable.
trying to play off the idea that these topics are completely isolated of one another? that's mental gymnastics with stupid ass thoughts.

....

I referenced something you literally just did

You literally came into Politics Topic 86
You literally made that post

There's no hidden commentary. There's no acting like anything is isolated

I literally brought up one specific act that caused my response

How

Why

What are you even trying to do at this point
---

DeathChicken posted...

Having a deal of familiarity with this, I think I can safely say it's pathological and you are wasting your time

---

And honestly, Wang's core point of "we as a human race need to wean out the violent parts of Islam" is already happening and has been happening for a long time.

Could it be faster? Sure
---

DeathChicken posted...

DeathChicken posted...

Having a deal of familiarity with this, I think I can safely say it's pathological and you are wasting your time

Yeah, I definitely see that now.
---

Wanglicious posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Wang, would you be for taking all the radical Muslims and radical Christians and throw them all on an island somewhere with instructions to kill each other?

honestly just the setup alone would do it. there's enough radical Muslims that would interpret various scripture as already having that instruction, so they'd totally go for it. i... don't think we have many Christians radicalized to a similar point of fully accepting murder as the better choice or as part of God's will. obviously this was the case in the past with the Catholic Church but they've changed a lot.

I wasn't suggesting it would be voluntary >_>... just... one idea of how to get rid of radicalized/extremist religion.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

...you're doing exactly this by saying "islam and ___"?

that's not what actually happens is all. even take what you wrote - your focus is now on islamic terrorism. so now if you aren't a terrorist, it's okay for your wife to be killed if she's raped?

if you want to start an analysis, start from the basic point. that's the religion. you hammer that point out then move forward. if you start with criticizing the ideas and just the ideas, the results will move forward from there, with people from inside the community working with the new set of ideas and hopefully adding bits and pieces that remove the backwards elements from it.

but you start from point zero, you don't add things to it.
---

---

Wanglicious posted...

but you start from point zero, you don't add things to it.

Say your wife is killed because she was raped. Is it okay if no one involved is Muslim?

It seems like you're the one adding stuff here. Wonder why.
---

Well wangs point should be " we need to dump Saudi Arabia as allies to bring an end to their toxic influence over islam." But he is all over the place on it.
---

Reg posted...

I can't tell who's shitposting and who's serious here, and that's very concerning

I've been mixing shitposting with serious posting since I first showed up in these topics.
---

<_< i have literally never said anything about Saudi Arabia as allies so that'd be pretty impossible.
---

Eddv posted...

Well wangs point should be " we need to dump Saudi Arabia as allies to bring an end to their toxic influence over islam." But he is all over the place on it.

but then we wouldn't have control over oil and that would make the money sad
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

Anyone who follows 100% of the commands of the quran is a dangerous lunatic.
Anyone who follows 100% of the commands of the bible is a dangerous lunatic.

Does anyone here object to either statement?

Absolutely not. Both statements are fundamentally and objectively true.
---

Actually I think if you tried to follow 100% of the commands of either book, you'd collapse into a nothingness of contradictions
---

@MariaTaylor

I think the point I was trying to make, and you can tell me if I didn't explain it well, was that Muslims being only 1% of the population excuses them doing shitty stuff worldwide, it's that people are using it to demonize the relatively peaceful and non-threatening population of the US that wields very limited power to affect our laws, and most that have immigrated to our land have determined they want to get AWAY from Sharia Law. Yet, and this is why I criticize the right, there's this massive movement among conservatives that they are taking over our land and are working on changing our laws and culture, which is a massive overstatement of their abilities to influence the US in any meaningful way.

And the reason why I focus on the US is because, realistically, we can't play world police. Are we going to overthrow every sovereign nation that has horrible human rights' abuses? I mean, in an ideal world we could do something more than publicly condemning horrible behavior in these nations. I'd love to have the ability to play world police and literally take over the entire world in order to ensure proper rights for all human beings. But we can't do that. And I think plenty on the left condemn the actions and violations of human rights. We can argue maybe that the scale should be higher, but it most definitely exists and I've heard plenty of moderate Muslims condemning the behavior of the extremists.
---

Wanglicious posted...

<_< i have literally never said anything about Saudi Arabia as allies so that'd be pretty impossible.

No but most of your complaints about Islam can be tracked directly to Wahhabism whuch is only influential because its the official relivion of the House of Saud.
---

Wanglicious posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

The actual topic is the violent, radical extremists.

...no, it's not.
read from page 7 in the last topic to now.
you are completely making that up because you don't know what you're talking about here. maria's arguments have largely been centered around the same idea too.

that is the topic and the constant deflection or hand waving from it isn't helping any.

Different people have different page settings, so what is "page 7" to you might be an entirely different page to someone else.

Same can't be said for religions or cultures or anything like that, but let's try to be sensitive and tolerant toward everyone's topic/page settings
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Same can't be said for religions or cultures or anything like that, but let's try to be sensitive and tolerant toward everyone's topic/page settings

if you don't have everything on max you should be stoned to death tbh
---

Wanglicious posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

...you're doing exactly this by saying "islam and ___"?

that's not what actually happens is all. even take what you wrote - your focus is now on islamic terrorism. so now if you aren't a terrorist, it's okay for your wife to be killed if she's raped?

if you want to start an analysis, start from the basic point. that's the religion. you hammer that point out then move forward. if you start with criticizing the ideas and just the ideas, the results will move forward from there, with people from inside the community working with the new set of ideas and hopefully adding bits and pieces that remove the backwards elements from it.

but you start from point zero, you don't add things to it.

Because religious people, by default, openly and willingly change when you explain to them the faults of their current beliefs and ideologies...
---

that's not answering how i'm "all over the place on it" considering i've never been on it at all as... i never mentioned saudi arabia. i mean you def know more of the history there, i'm not doubting that. but it's not getting into my issue of how the left doesn't tackle this head on.
---

Kenri posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Same can't be said for religions or cultures or anything like that, but let's try to be sensitive and tolerant toward everyone's topic/page settings

if you don't have everything on max you should be stoned to death tbh

I've had times when I got so paranoid that I felt like my heart rate was so fast that I was at risk of being stoned to death >_>
---

Jeff Sessions probably thinks people on 4/20 got stoned to death.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Jeff Sessions probably thinks people on 4/20 got stoned to death.

God dammit we needed to fill up the last topic one day early.
---