UK will classify "Islamist extremism" as distinct ideology

I could say the distinction was coerced by assault and the taking of lives,
so ever close towards terror and the entailed fear to the so called infidels.

 

Who cares whether their consenting or not? Is your moral compasse simply based on the concept of consent? It's all good as long both parties agree, right? A juvenile and silly philosophy. Why should the world have to adhere to it, given that it was merely pulled out of Locke's a**.

 

Yes, pedophilia is rape because a child can not consent, same sex intercourse between two consenting adults is not morally analogous to rape.

When it comes to sexual relationships between two consenting adults it is none of your *******n business and certainly not the business of the state!

This applies equally in homosexual and heterosexual relations.

Says the man whose argumentation basically comes down to "eww gay sex yucky let's kill them!"

I'll take Locke over the pedophile mass murdering Mohammad any day of the week.

 

Is this notion of consent only applicalble when it comes to sex? Again, is your moral compasse simply based on the concept of consent?

Why isn't it any of my business? What makes your moral standpoint supreme to mine?

And where exactly did I make this argument? You are lieing again.

 

Problem is with a LITERAL interpretation, not a distorted one. I have no problems with the distorted version that says "Islam is peace". A literal interpretaion of the following from the Koran is what causes the most trouble.

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.(*)

[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah...(*)

2.216] Fighting is enjoined on you, and h is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.

[2.244] And fight in the way of Allah,...

[2.246] ...May it not be that you would not fight if fighting is ordained for you? They said: And what reason have we that we should not fight in the way of Allah, and we have indeed been compelled to abandon our homes and our children. But when fighting was ordained for them, they turned back, except a few of them, and Allah knows the unjust.

[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.

[3.169] And reckon not those who are killed in Allah's way as dead; nay, they are alive (and) are provided sustenance from their Lord;

[4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.

[4.76] Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak.

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain;(*)

[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

[47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them

 

When it comes to sexual relations yes the only question that I am concerned with and with what the law should be concerned with is consent.

What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home has nothing whatsoever to do with you, explain to me how it is any of your *******n business? You don't see me protesting Muslims (*)(*)(*)(*)ing their first cousins do you and demanding their execution do you? All though maybe I should because holy (*)(*)(*)(*) that's gross. Under the Sharia raping children as young as 9 and (*)(*)(*)(*)ing your first cousin are perfectly legal; whereas, same sex relations between consenting adults are punishable by death, yes those Muslims sure do have the moral high ground over those deviant homosexuals.

That's what your argument boils down to, you have yet to provide an answer as to why it's any of your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing business as to the sexual relations between consenting adults.

 

I think Goomba is a muslim. They usually believe the morality of the koran is to be enforced as law.

 

Paedophilia is a modern construct, and attempting to link what was commonplace in mediaeval times (child marriage/betrothal), to what we now regard as morally and culturally unacceptable, is simply a laughably inept and predictably recurring attempt at vilifying Muslims. You failed dismally, as usual.

I suppose my mentioning Jewish paedophilia would not be acceptable. Of course it wouldn't be. Try another tactic; you're running out of worn-out cliches.

 

Why?

Sorry, we are not discussing what consenting adults do in their own bedroom, but rather the the very concept of moral, sexual relationships. One could argue that legalizing and approving homosexual practices is harmful to the moral fiber of his/her community, for instance.

Interesting; please point out this non-existant argument I've made against homosexuality.

 

Save your outrage for the person stating that homosexuality should be criminalized and is the moral equivalency of pedophilia, once again don't you dare claim to give a damn about human rights, it would seem that your concern for human rights starts and stops at the Ummah.

You may actually have a point if to this day Sharia law did not provide for legalized child rape. Tell me snakestretcher, what are the ages of consent for Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, etc? Even in Iran which technically has an age of consent of 15 this only goes so far as special permission from a judge allowing 42,000 children between the ages of 10 and 14 to be married in 2010 alone, of those 42,000 75 were under the age of 10 in Tehran alone.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/iran-lawmakers-men-wed-adopted-daughters

Your assertion that we have to go back to medieval Islam to find it culturally and legally acceptable amongst the Ummah is simply bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

The only Jewish majority state on the planet does not allow pedophilia or child marriage and in fact their entire marriage process is controlled by the religious authorities except in cases of same sex couples or inter-religious couples where they either marry outside of the country or go to the consulate of Paraguay within Israel as Paraguayan law does not require couples to be in country to recognize their marriages.

 

He probably would if the person actually asserted so and so. Are lies all you tell, or do you just have very poor comprehension skills?

 

Because it's none of my *******n business and doesn't effect me in the slightest. Please explain how same sex relations are less moral than heterosexual relations?

You could argue that but yet you can not provide a single scrap of quantitative evidence to support that argument. Your argument boils down to "my imaginary man in the sky said it's bad so it must be bad," now I know in the Madrassas that might fly but here amongst civilized and educated peoples it does not. I would argue that Islam is a corrosive ideology which is antithetical to basic human rights promulgated by a known pedophile, mass murderer, and likely schizophrenic and I have far more evidence for that argument than you do for yours.

What's your argument for the sexual activities of consenting adults being any of your *******n (*)(*)(*)(*)ing business?

 

You have been doing nothing but throughout this entire thread IE defending death for homosexual sex under the Sharia. Do you or do you not believe that states have the right to criminalize homosexual intercourse?

 

Yet it is your *******n business when pedophilia is inolved (which is what we are talking about). So which is it, the need for consent or you just not giving a damn? Or is it that you give a damn because there is no consent? Would you have a problem with parents teaching their children hate? Consent is not involved, correct? What about parents feeding their children vegetables? No consent there as well.

Second, just because it's none of your business does not mean that this should be the case for others.

And where is your quantitative evidence that shows it's good when it's not your business, or when there is consent, or whatever lame moral code you have chosen to live by? Quantitative evidence- what a hoot you are!

I'll give you an answer when I actually care.

- - - Updated - - -

Nonsense.

 

I don't like criminalizing some group called 'Islamic Extremists' because there are extremists in all religions and extremists in areas that have nothing to do with religion, like extremists nationalists, and maybe even extremist soccer fans.

In fact, I don't like criminalizing some group by merely calling them 'extremists' at all, because then you're criminalizing a mindset and not what a person does or even what they say. Being an American, I don't even like criminalizing what people say except in rare circumstances, but I understand much of Europe views freedom of speech quite a bit more narrowly than many Americans do.

 

Um no we are talking about homosexuality, children can't consent! You are now comparing forcing your children to eat their vegetables at dinner to child rape, are you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing insane?

So then you admit that you support the right of the state to criminalize sexual relations between consenting adults.

What the hell does this even mean? You are claiming that homosexuality is detrimental to society and the community, so provide your evidence, my claim is based on inalienable human rights; such as, the rights to privacy and free association. Once again you don't see me demanding the criminalization of Muslims (*)(*)(*)(*)ing their 1st cousins which is actually detrimental to society and the community due to the genetic implications of inbreeding which in actuality goes to explain a lot of what is wrong with the Muslim and Arab people.

You obviously do care considering your adamant defense for murdering gays for being gay.

One needs only read your ridiculous comments defending the criminalization of homosexuality and your comparison of consensual relations between adults to pedophilia.

 

We failed to remain on our side of the ocean.

 

Nazi policy couldn't be different because their allies in Europe were populists who based their power over the superstitious peasantry , without the villagers communists in Italy and anarchists in Spain would have won .
There is also no badge for theists .
I doubt any source that doesn't present the church as a nazi collaborator because they were .

 

Nope, we are talking about pedophilia (all you have to do is look back at the previous posts). So let me ask you again, is this notion of consent only applicalble when it comes to sex? Why?

Well you yourself said it was a matter of consent, did you not?

Where have I admitted such? You are lieing again. Try to actually tackle the given argument once in a while.

I am claiming nothing of the sort; you are simply lieing again. You must really be foolish if you think morals must be based on 'quantitative data.'

Lovely, and where is the quantitative data that supports such a viewpoint?

Another lie.

Nonsense. Either provide proof for these claims or gt-fo.

 

I never claimed that the church did not contain Nazi sympathizers their roll in the rat lines following the war are well known what I said is that the Nazi's were not a Christian movement or sect and in fact sought to destroy the Church and supplant it with Nordic Paganism.

 

No we were talking about homosexuality between two consenting adults when you chimed in with your ludicrous comparison to pedophilia in an attempt to place them at moral equivalence, do try to follow along.

You are comparing eating vegetables to rape, so again I ask you are you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing insane?

Then what was meant by this statement:

 

Not sure about vegetables, but comparisons can be made with fruit. For instance, I once was confronted by a woman in a high state of distress who approached me claiming that she had been "graped". While sympathising with her, I nevertheless felt compelled to correct her obvious grammatical error by suggesting to her that I was convinced she meant to say "raped" to which, in a voice trembling with emotion, she replied, "no there was a bunch of 'em".

 

Exactly, and you have failed to show how one cannot consider them to morally equivalent. So again, why is this notion of consent only applicable when it comes to sex?

Just answer the question.

I have not admitted anything in those statements.

I told you, I don't care. I'm only interested in tackling the arguments of ethnocentric individuals who think their moral standpoint is supreme.

And where exactly in that statement did I assert that homosexuality is detrimental to society?

Why must someone back up such a view with quantitative data? If a person believes that maintaining sexual abstinance before marriage is right, and that having sex before getting married is wrong, does that mean this person should back up his beliefs with quantitative data? Examples abound.

This is just too moronic and silly to even bother with.

Indeed.

 

Once again for the madrassas educated one is rape and the other is consensual sexual relations, the issue of consent is relevant to sexual relations because without consent it is not sex but rape, how the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you not getting this?

The question comparing child rape to eating vegetables? You know that these ridiculous statements of yours will be on the net in perpetuity for the entire forum to use to mock and ridicule you with right?

Your statements are clear cut, your own words expose you for who and what you are.

Notice that the he refuses to answer the question.

Right here:

We are not talking about voluntary behavior we are talking about the criminalization of consensual sexual relationships, I don't care what you believe the question is when you attempt to establish your beliefs as the law of the land when those beliefs are in violation of basic human rights!

If by moronic and silly you mean factual and incontrovertible then yes.

Yes indeed:

 

Straw-man; I'm not interested in whether consent is relevant ( or not ) to sexual relations. Once again for the student of the American education system, why is the notion of consent only applicable when it comes to sex.

I could care less. Now answer the question. But I'll give you a hint- this and the above question that you have yet to answer are the same thing.

I guess we have the appropriate authorities to refer to with regards to that.

Of course, the question is quite irrelevant.

Comprehension problems again? I started the sentence with "One could argue..."

Yet you are establishing your beliefs as the law of the land because you and others believe in consensual sexual relations, and thus want this belief to be incorporated into state law.

Hmmm...nah, I'll go with moronic and silly.

Are you saying you disagree with that statement?