Paris ban on Muslim street prayers comes into effect - Polidicks

You still need to stop being idiots and start thinking about what you call "Muslim" and if it really is one. Because extremists who declare war on west are not Muslims. They are people who use Islam as an excuse to fuck shit up and gain power.

[QUOTE=Swilly;32323915]Yes, post Malcolm X, the man who turned around after learning what Islam was really about started doing peaceful protests. YES DEFINITELY.[/QUOTE] Malcolm X became peaceful only after he became a Hajji

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32323925]You still need to stop being idiots and start thinking about what you call "Muslim" and if it really is one.[/QUOTE]I'm referring to the Muslims that hate the west, and want to kill westerners and Christians.

[QUOTE=acds;32323916]Criticizing is different from hating. I don't say "Behead all extremists!", if they criticized instead of preaching hate and inciting violence, it'd be perfectly fine.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but where exactly do you get to draw that line?

[QUOTE=faze;32323929]I'm referring to the Muslims that hate the west, and want to kill westerners and Christians.[/QUOTE] These are not Muslims, these are Islamists, aka terrorists using Islam as an excuse. Get your shit straight and stop listening to fox news.

[QUOTE=faze;32323907][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States[/url] Yes, it is.[/QUOTE] Do not quote Wikipedia at me. First of all, Fighting Words are not "behead the unbelievers," fighting words are "BEHEAD THAT MAN RIGHT THERE RIGHT THERE KILL HIM NOW," and then somebody actually does it. Cases of incitement are rarely ever pursued for the very reason that real incitement to violence rarely happens. When it does, it's extremely difficult to prove. Secondly, defamation and slander are not crimes, they are offenses to be pursued in civil court. Why do you think every instance of a defamation case is "Somebody v. Somebody" and not "The United States v. Somebody?" They aren't illegal, they are simply recognized as offenses that can be pursued in civil court. You are not a criminal if you lose that case. The government cannot take action against you, they can only arbitrate a dispute between you and the other party.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32323925]You still need to stop being idiots and start thinking about what you call "Muslim" and if it really is one.[/QUOTE] Muslim or not doesn't matter to me (but Muslim extremist protests where the subject of the argument), it's an extremist (if he then is Muslim, Christian or whatever, it doesn't affect my opinion).

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32323956]These are not Muslims, these are Islamists, aka terrorists using Islam as an excuse. Get your shit straight and stop listening to fox news.[/QUOTE]Excuse me grammar Nazi, I'm not a Muslim or Islam or whatever. You know what the fuck I mean. Oh, and the Fox News accusation, isn't funny and is very old.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32323928]Malcolm X became peaceful only after he became a Hajji[/QUOTE] He was also pushing for a Separate black nation.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32323936]I'm sorry, but where exactly do you get to draw that line?[/QUOTE] When it starts inciting violence. It's really not a difficult line to draw.

[QUOTE=Swilly;32323987]He was also pushing for a Separate black nation.[/QUOTE] Before he completed the pilgrimage to the Mecca and became a Hajji. [editline]16th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=acds;32323999]When it starts inciting violence. It's really not a difficult line to draw.[/QUOTE] And how do you define incitement? In what way can you define incitement that cannot, under any circumstances, result in an abuse of the legal system? because I just laid out the modern definition for incitement, and it DOESN'T include these protestors.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32323928]Malcolm X became peaceful only after he became a Hajji[/QUOTE]That's what he said.

Look. Islam = the religion Muslim = people being part of Islam Islamist = the terrorists who blew up the twin towers, are forcing people to embrace a travesty of Islam, want nothing but power in their hands using people's poverty to convert them to a religion they change to match their own needs. The last one is hardly considered Muslim. Islamists don't do manifestations in the US to declare war on them - they do it from their home country in the east you want them to be sent to. Get your shit right.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;32324042]That's what he said.[/QUOTE] No he was implying Malcolm X abandoned Islam and then became peaceful. "Yes, post Malcolm X, the man who turned around after learning what Islam was really about started doing peaceful protests." As far as I can tell the "YES DEFINITELY" was sarcasm. Could be wrong.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32324071]No he was implying Malcolm X abandoned Islam and then became peaceful. "Yes, post Malcolm X, the man who turned around after learning what Islam was really about started doing peaceful protests." As far as I can tell the "YES DEFINITELY" was sarcasm.[/QUOTE] Ah you're right. His weird wording at the end threw me off. It was [I]after[/I] he left the Nation of Islam, made Hajj and joined Islam is when he became peaceful. NoI and Islam are entirely different. (@Swilly)

[QUOTE=MR-X;32323847]Its funny that people make fun of France and all that but so far they've had the balls to do tons of bans that look "culturally insensitive." While places like Britain just cave in to Muslims and other foreign immigrants demands while screwing over their native people. I have no problem with religion, if you want to practice it in your own home or local church/mosque go for it. But keep it there, I don't want to see or hear it on public streets and various other places. It isn't a anti-Muslim thing, I hate seeing it in public as a whole (Christianity, etc).[/QUOTE] Just because you don't like seeing it doesn't mean you have the right not to see it,

[QUOTE=Swilly;32323987]He was also pushing for a Separate black nation.[/QUOTE]While he was in the Nation of Islam. You're confusing Islam and NoI. [img]http://i.imgur.com/uvtCS.png[/img]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32324150]Just because you don't like seeing it doesn't mean you have the right not to see it,[/QUOTE]Yeah, I bet he's against church groups raising money for their church, and I bet he's against missions trips to help needy people too.

[QUOTE=MR-X;32323847]Its funny that people make fun of France and all that but so far they've had the balls to do tons of bans that look "culturally insensitive." While places like Britain just cave in to Muslims and other foreign immigrants demands while screwing over their native people. [/QUOTE] So if a Muslim is a British citizen, shouldn't they get the same rights as you? And if not, why, and in what way are they screwing over "native people"?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;32323628]And my country never forced native american families apart to christianize the children nor did we have Japanese concentration camps in world war 2 (There's nothing wrong with admitting terrible shit your country has done/is doing) Wikipedia cities the source as [i]The Cornell Daily Sun, Inc. 4 December 2002. "Qatar's Gay Rights Policy Under Scrutiny."[/i][/QUOTE] Its not that I'm in denial, it's that I know many local gay people who live without persecution that this was a surprise to me.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32324001] And how do you define incitement? In what way can you define incitement that cannot, under any circumstances, result in an abuse of the legal system? because I just laid out the modern definition for incitement, and it DOESN'T include these protestors.[/QUOTE] You know perfectly well how to draw a line between inciting violence and normal protesting, stop pretending you don't. It's pretty obvious when people are inciting a violent act as opposed to peacefully protesting, and you know it too (if you couldn't differentiate between inciting violence and peacefully protesting, you wouldn't have been able to get out of high school let alone get a Doctorate in law, or whatever it was you have).

[QUOTE=acds;32324190]You know perfectly well how to draw a line between inciting violence and normal protesting, stop pretending you don't. It's pretty obvious when people are inciting a violent act as opposed to peacefully protesting, and you know it too (if you couldn't differentiate between inciting violence and peacefully protesting, you wouldn't have been able to get out of high school let alone get a Doctorate in law, or whatever it was you have).[/QUOTE]He's trying to troll, just ignore him.

[QUOTE=faze;32324173]Yeah, I bet he's against church groups raising money for their church, and I bet he's against missions trips to help needy people too.[/QUOTE] i personally dont much care for seeing radical christians firebombing abortion clinics but thats just me

[QUOTE=Lankist;32324201]i personally dont much care for seeing radical christians firebombing abortion clinics but thats just me[/QUOTE]They're not doing that in the name of God. Radical Islamic folks do their dirty deeds in the name of Allah.

[QUOTE=acds;32324190]You know perfectly well how to draw a line between inciting violence and normal protesting, stop pretending you don't. It's pretty obvious when people are inciting a violent act as opposed to peacefully protesting, and you know it too (if you couldn't differentiate between inciting violence and peacefully protesting, you wouldn't have been able to get out of high school let alone get a Doctorate in law, or whatever it was you have).[/QUOTE] Shit yes I know how to define it, I want to know how YOU define it. because this is how shit works here in the real world: [QUOTE=Lankist;32323971]Do not quote Wikipedia at me. First of all, Fighting Words are not "behead the unbelievers," fighting words are "BEHEAD THAT MAN RIGHT THERE RIGHT THERE KILL HIM NOW," and then somebody actually does it. Cases of incitement are rarely ever pursued for the very reason that real incitement to violence rarely happens. When it does, it's extremely difficult to prove. Secondly, defamation and slander are not crimes, they are offenses to be pursued in civil court. Why do you think every instance of a defamation case is "Somebody v. Somebody" and not "The United States v. Somebody?" They aren't illegal, they are simply recognized as offenses that can be pursued in civil court. You are not a criminal if you lose that case. The government cannot take action against you, they can only arbitrate a dispute between you and the other party.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=faze;32324195]He's trying to troll, just ignore him.[/QUOTE] as opposed to your awesome arguments like "You're so full of shit"

[QUOTE=Lankist;32324201]i personally dont much care for seeing radical christians firebombing abortion clinics but thats just me[/QUOTE] but that's the most efficient way to protect unborn life

[QUOTE=Lankist;32324225]Shit yes I know how to define it, I want to know how YOU define it. because this is how shit works here in the real world:[/QUOTE]You brought it up, burden of definition is on you kid.

[QUOTE=faze;32324221]They're not doing that in the name of God. Radical Islamic folks do their dirty deeds in the name of Allah.[/QUOTE] Yeah uh huh they aren't "real Christians." But the 4% of all global terrorism as a result of radical Islam, that's because it's an evil religion, right. Have you read the Bible? How about Like 19:27, the part where Jesus tells his disciples to bring unbelievers to his feet and kill them in front of him? [editline]16th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=faze;32324240]You brought it up, burden of definition is on you kid.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lankist;32323971]Do not quote Wikipedia at me. First of all, Fighting Words are not "behead the unbelievers," fighting words are "BEHEAD THAT MAN RIGHT THERE RIGHT THERE KILL HIM NOW," and then somebody actually does it. Cases of incitement are rarely ever pursued for the very reason that real incitement to violence rarely happens. When it does, it's extremely difficult to prove. Secondly, defamation and slander are not crimes, they are offenses to be pursued in civil court. Why do you think every instance of a defamation case is "Somebody v. Somebody" and not "The United States v. Somebody?" They aren't illegal, they are simply recognized as offenses that can be pursued in civil court. You are not a criminal if you lose that case. The government cannot take action against you, they can only arbitrate a dispute between you and the other party.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Lazor;32324235]as opposed to your awesome arguments like "You're so full of shit"[/QUOTE]What's so wrong with calling out an obvious lie? Do you want me to find a way to research it on Google and post results of his lie? Calling out a blatant lie is a pretty straight forward statement.