The debate "Liberals are starting to fall apart" was started by
March 23, 2017, 2:44 am.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
mmjd14 posted 21 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 19 arguments, neveralone posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
mmjd14, thereal, Jericho, EthanTReilly, FaithofExaltism, RedWolf, SirIntegra and 3 visitors agree.
3 visitors disagree.
sorry blue ray but you're wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_North_Korea
north Korea certainly interferes in it's citizens religion, but the state is secular.
what religion is it?
Papa big, NK is not ' secular '.
even secular nations can have extreme punishments. look at China and N.K.
the question is, how much say do people have. regardless of the majority faith or lack thereof. dictators tend to be cruel to hold on to their power. religion is just a tool they use sometimes.
so what's there version of punishment now? as long as it isn't extreme then I'm fine.
I'm assuming your asking for the moderate Muslim opinion on sharia.
according to the wiki page about sharia which referenced a pew poll: most Muslim majority countries, especially in the middle east, where people are allowed to have opinions, the vast majority want sharia law to be the law of the land, but a majority of them also don't want it to apply to non muslims.
also many of them want the sharia guidance in conflict disputes, marital/family issues, and laws regarding not charging interest, etc. they are not in favor of the biblical style punishments like chopping of hands and stoning. most moderates see those as outdated and not having a place in modern society. (also from the wiki site).
mmjd. do you know what sharia law is?
it's the same thing as canon law, or rabbinical law. and in almost any none dictatorship Muslim nation, it doesn't apply to non muslims. it's law that govern religious life, government enforcement.
just like in Christianity, it varies considerably.
true. but new testament is for forgiveness instead. though what is the general Muslim opinion outside the extremist?
you can look at Sharia law like the old testament. it says to kill people for a lot of things. Christianity eventually advanced to the point where killing people for being gay was no longer acceptable. Islam will advance too. it wasn't so long ago that Christians murdered apostates.
maybe I should of been more specific. I apologize. I was curious on wether they agree with the beheading of these people. I was not attacking them.
are Conservatives not driven to ban abortion and gay marriage based on their religious beliefs? you want to make religious laws that infringe on rights too. you are no different than they are.
overall do Muslims look down on Sharia law?
admit it if you support muslims you support sharia law
look at this hypocrite
you must've read something else lol. "believe in sharia" her exact words in the tweet? i mean does it have to be more clear why dont you read peoples reaction to that
also, she didn't say that she wants sharia, she said progressive Arab nations use sharia. that isn't an opinion, it's either true or isnt. it has nothing to do with her beliefs.
and did you ignore the left wing backlash to her comments bashing her for saying it? how does that show support among liberals...
you pretty much countered your own case.
if you actually bothered to read about the things you link you would know she didn't mean Sharia law. she was talking about Sharia as a personal set of beliefs, not something to be codified and enforced.
so no, you're wrong. she does not support Sharia law. want to try again or just admit that no liberals want Sharia law?
thats just one liberal and she's on CNN
look what sharia law is though its insane they kill people if they're not muslim why dont muslims all muslims do that?
you definitely support it without a doubt. you're saying yeah let them all in who cares what they think. i just think its dumb that your solution is try to let normal muslims that live here try to reason with these people that are ruthless
you keep making strawman arguments. no one on the liberal spectrum is advocating for Sharia law. there is not one example of this nonsense happening.
You're acting as though we should just accept the premise that liberals are pro Sharia law. liberals, generally are pro equal rights and equal protection. you're just trying to vilify liberal ideals and assigning a nefarious motive for which you have no actual evidence.
this is a attempt to invoke emotion not rational. please support your claims with actual evidence, quotes, and facts. baseless assertions are not arguments.
So why don't you provide some quotes of liberals advocating for Sharia law in America, find some piece of legislation sponsored by liberals to enact Sharia law, etc... if you can't do that, you can't make the claim you're trying to make and you need to move on.
also, I don't remember Christian societies treating gays all that well only a decade or 2 ago. go back a few more decades and your treatment of woman wasn't exemplary either. the only reason those groups have any rights here now was because of left wing progressives. so all this moral superiority you now claim over traditional Islamic nations... your welcome.
here's what I suggest.
judge a person by the actions of said person.
if they are murderous jyhadies, hang em for all I care. although life imprisonment can be worse imo.
if they are not, then leave them alone. the non optional groups they belong to should be irrelevant.
and please stop claiming I want to "talk" to the murderous jyhadies. I dont. but I don't mind talking to ordinary people.
I agree. let's do 1 topic at a time.
however I don't understand what you mean by: "you want to let muslims that live in the US try to reason with Shari'a law muslims."
there is no such thing as "sharia law muslims" sharia law applies to all muslims. it is their religious laws. much like you follow Catholic doctrine that isn't part of official US legal law, and Jews follow rabbinical law. the problem is when any religious group tries to enforce their religious laws on people who don't want to follow them.
I don't want "our" muslims to reason with "their" muslims. I want to empower people living under oppressive militant groups and dictators to fight for their own freedom. "our" muslims have about as much to do with "their" muslims as American Christians are responsible for the actions of Russian christians. we are all individuals, and should be judged based on individual actions. is that wrong?
it just amazes me your thought process. you want to let muslims that live in the US try to reason with Shari'a law muslims. lets talk about one subject at a time okay we will get to the other stuff later
why are you so aggressive to liberals? I understand you don't approve of our approach, but that doesn't mean you are necessarily right. (same for us) and we feel equally dismayed by your approaches.
our goals are the same. you do realize this? there is no need for such a hostile tone. I'm glad you are at least talking to the other side :)
you do realize that imposing religious sharia law is not much different from imposing religious marriage standards (no gays) on our secular society.
in many non dictator Muslim nations, sharia law is considered something meant only for religious communities. not even applicable to non muslims. much like rabbinical law is only used within the Jewish community. it's dictators, of any religion, that try to use faith to enslave their people. once again you are taking the worse example in countries where people don't even have a say in their policies to blame billions of innocent people.
when did I say I support sharia law?
the issue is you think isis = muslim.
how can that be when most of the victims of isis, and most of the people fighting isis are muslims...
"i would fight for sure for my religion if i was there"
but you are not there... and neither are the feminists. so why the double standard. perhaps they would fight for women's rights if they were there, but they arent. the are here.
women have it good here? what impositions do Christians face here? omg, are we forcing a baker to bake?!?! how dare we....
whatever arguments you have against feminists and in defense of Christian rights, just flip the 2 and consider the double standard.
yes obama did play the blame game
because you support muslims who support Shari'a law. i dont it is wrong they treat women like there nothing. they kill millions of Christians. and no i would fight for sure for my religion if i was there it would most likely lead to my death but i would be backing up my faith feminist say they have it rough here when i wish they would spend one day in the middle east and see how easy they got it here and its funny you support those muslim that think gay should be killed and women aren't equal to men
I hope you are here to break out of the echo chamber and challenge your views against the actual other side and not a caricature of the opposition created by your own side.
Obama didn't blame anyone for anything. and I was blaming the Iraqi president. not bush.
when did I say "let's talk to them?"
I said let local players fight them.
I understand I disgust you, but that's only because you are clueless about any of my positions. your claim that "I want to talk to them" is proof. your not listening to a word I'm saying and just putting breitbart liberal quotes into my mouth.
please listen to what I am saying and let's have a good discussion. I look forward to an open debate free from personal attacks and generalized assumptions. mono a mono.
and look what happened obama literally tried to blame bush for taking the soilders out. and youre over here saying lets talk to them lets try to talk this out you really think that they will be reasonable have you seen what they've done to people you seriously disgust me. wake up to reality man
we could have stayed with permission, but the president demanded our soldiers be accountable to their law enforcement. Obama said hell no (clearly a push over right?)
do what option would you prefer?
1. open our troops to foreign courts?
2. force our troops against the will of a democratically elected government?
a mystery 4th option I can't think of?
Obama didn't want to leave. the elected Iraqi president didn't want to extend permission for our troops to stay....
do you want us to defy the democratically elected government and become true occupiers? why am I not surprised your news sources omitted that detail...
not really. anyone can believe whatever they want. even religious institutions are free to do whatever, even discriminate.
the only issue is when it comes to for profit businesses. but apparently even this small sector whose purpose is to provide mundane services and make money (hardly religious work) is apparently more important than the systematic discrimination of entire groups of people.
so the only reason your not fighting for religious liberties in the middle east is cause you are scared for your life?
but you expect every feminist to pack up and run there eagerly?
even tho both women and Christians face similar levels threats and oppression there?
why the double standard?
you people are the ones making a problem about people choosing to what to believe in you're the ones messing with peoples faith
because if i spoke about my religion there i would be beheaded
i didn't support it but we left so stupid and obama even seemed guilty for creating isis and at least we kept them in there country look whats happening now
cause things don't happen like magic. it takes time. did the right wing military approach prove so successful in iraq? did that end quickly or are we still in that mess? btw. most people who study the conflict have concluded that isis was created in the vacuum we created in our battles with saddam and al Qaeda. so it wasn't obama. it was bush and the military approach you seem to support.
that reminds me. you said why do feminists not go to the middle east to fight for woman's rights there.
that is absolutely senseless.
the right here is fighting for "religious liberties" regarding cake baking while Christians are being killed in the middle east... why don't YOU go to the middle east to fight for religious freedom there?!?
you live here, you want to fix the issues here. same for the feminists.
because all the Muslims here probably dont care what they're doing to innocent people
well why hasn't it happened yet? were sick of peole getting killed by these terrorist
the best way to stop the spread of anti west extremism through Islam is to help local Muslims resist them.
for us as outsiders riding in and solving their problems for them will only make us look like colonizers (regardless of actual intentions) and will create dependence in them and needless responsibility (nation building) for us.
we tried this in Iraq. why would we actively ignore the lessons we learn there?
just call them Muslim terrorist or just plain terrorist. also work with ur allies and both take on Isis which will destroy them faster as well as help solidify ally relationships
let's be honest then.
isis claims: "the west hates muslims, you will not be welcome there, you must fight them".
liberals completely counter that narrative and work with muslims to fight isis. our soldiers don't come back in body bags, and isis doesn't bother targeting us, instead doing regional attacks against the Muslims fighting them.
the right pretty much confirm everything isis says, reinforcing their message and giving people trying to flee isis few options.
we can say "Islamic extremist terrorism" it's not hard. it's just stupid. our muslim allies doing most of the fighting against isis have expressed frustration over the term. how does pissing off your allies help you win a war? what exactly does naming the enemy in a strangely specific way accomplish objectively?
youre boy started the fire
as a bit of info. u can be a liberal Republican or a conservative Democratic. the rep./dem. are party's. lib./con. are ideologies. though admittedly they usually follow a pattern but not always
you don't seem to understand his point. people such as yourself are ISIS' greatest ally because of your racism, hate and islamophobia. you are feeding ISIS when you do this. it's like trying to fight an oil fire by throwing water on it (or trying to blow it up). it makes you feel better to do something that looks like it should help. but all you end up doing is spreading the fire.
in this case your hate breeds more hate. all you doing is convincing Muslims there is no middle ground. they either give up their faith or join a group like ISIS. that is exactly the position ISIS wants them to be in. you are doing their job for them.
now lets be honest who is isis biggest ally!
democrat/liberal: cant even say the words "radical islamic terrorist" therefore won't even admit theres a problem. they're more worried about hurting feelings than ending isis. also who started isis? wasn't it the guy who pulled the troops out and tried to blame bush for it? sounds like someone on here lol. so thats a small reason why isis loves liberals.
Republican/conservative: very aggressive to end isis and make sure our people are safe even if that means to keep refugees entering our country that are from the countries that are dangerous. actually isn't afraid to admit theres a problem that needs to be stopped.
its funny to me how people who are feminist and pro gay when are also pro muslim who they are against all of the views liberals have.
making a list of crimes doesn't put anything into context. this is a nation of over 300 million people. and not a single group is 100% free from criminals, and interestingly immigrants have amongst the lowest crime rates.
I am not the one confirming isis propaganda and driving fresh recruits into their ranks.
and he didn't just randomly blamed bush. unlike you he referenced specific laws and made a specific point. if you disagree please make your points instead of just typing lol and pretending you said something. if you are afraid of the deep state, Democrats may seek to increase spending, but it is Republicans that seek to increase the oppressive power of government. both foreign and domestic.
is this isolated?
all of those could have been avoided.
really nemiroff all terroist attacks? keep kissing theexistentialist ass. YOU are isis biggest ally
and he had possession of offensive weapons so who knows if he had a gun or not. lol
plus watch sean hannity tonight nunes is gonns be on so we don't know if trump is right or wrong but its hilarious to me that you're blaming bush for this lol.
lol. as existentialist said, it was a citizen who was born inside of the nation... again. just like all of them.
rather than open borders, perhaps it is the right's hateful rhetoric that is pushing people into the hands of isis... you guys are isis's greatest ally.
there is one interesting thing in that attack. the attacker struck 2 people with his car and then stabbed an officer to death.
imagine how much damage he would have done if he had easy access to a gun...
"everyone was calling trump a liar for the wiretapping and wow it might be true!"
not really; it seems that he was recorded while talking to Russian agents as collateral, but there seems to be no evidence that he was the target of surveillance. The controversy is that his name may have been published on the reports (although even that isn't really certain)....and actually this would be a result of the Bush administrations expansion of electronic surveillance laws.
" terroist attack in London today...open boarders"
borders have nothing to do with this attack it seems. All evidence seems to point to the fact that this was another case of homegrown terrorism; so boarder control would have done absolutely nothing to prevent this. Furthermore, the UK boarders aren't "open". They are only "open" to people already in the EU.
" for example illegal immigrant rapes 14 year old girl at school bathroom"
there are well over 40,000 rapes in the US per year (not counting attempted rapes. So in the grand scheme of things, this is a fairly isolated incident. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the concept of immigration reform as advocated by democrats. The strawman nonsense of wanting open boarders doesn't actually represent the reformations advocated for by "liberals", so I don't actually know how this is in any way, shape, or form a way to diminish the validity of comprehensive immigration reform with the terms advocated for by "liberals".
So can you tell me what exactly "liberals" stand for that is blowing up in their face?
okay a lot of the things liberals stand up for is blowing up in there face. and it was metaphorical guy so relax. okay for example illegal immigrant rapes 14 year old girl at school bathroom terroist attack in London today member from isis. guess what London has open borders exactly what Trump doesn't want. and everyone was calling trump a liar for the wiretapping and wow it might be true!
are you gonna make an argument or just keep hoping that someone will make it for you??
not really... please elaborate.
have you not see what happened the last two days?
What does this even mean??
You seem to make the implication that liberals are some kind of cohesive group with an agenda and an organizational structure.....That is of course not the case. Just like saying "conservatives are falling apart" isn't an accurate statement.
The two party system forces small sub-groups to come together and pretend to be on the same page. You saw this initially with the GOP and the tea party. What is happening to the Dems is really not much different.