(Radical) Islam's Incompatibility with Democracy and Western Ideals

[Drydess]

I'm pretty sure if I watched a video about people getting their heads chopped off I wouldn't exactly say "Eh whatever who cares nothing too major here"

so why wouldn't you assume that any non-protesting whites would be supporting it? the fact that they're muslim has nothing to do with that statement

[Ad Bot]

[Red Spy]

so why wouldn't you assume that any non-protesting whites would be supporting it?

I do assume that, there's plenty of white people (in the US mind you,) who support CIA

[Nonnel]

Also, those people are pretty irrelevant when they're not the ones doing extreme stuff

what does this mean

[otto-san]

Also, those people are pretty irrelevant when they're not the ones doing extreme stuff

it was responding to someone claiming that muslims don't protest the actions of terrorist groups like CIA, so it was definitely relevant in its context at the very least

though i would find it strange if you were implying that the only cases that matter in a situation where you're evaluating something as a whole are the bad cases, because that would be a pretty extreme fallacy. probably just misunderstood

[beachbum111111]

Too be fair western ideals (at least "progressive" ones) aren't compatible with Democracy either.

[otto-san]

Too be fair western ideals (at least "progressive" ones) aren't compatible with Democracy either.

which ones? i usually associate western ideals with democratic values

[Rigel]

we should just have total anarchy, forget everything

[beachbum111111]

which ones? i usually associate western ideals with democratic values

Hate speech, political correctness, "tolerance". I'm talking about what I would call the mainstream left but what you may call the crazy loving handicaps who have poisoned the left. And maybe you don't even consider those western ideals.

[Nonnel]

we should just have total anarchy, forget everything

the most conscious conclusion a person can come to

[otto-san]

Hate speech, political correctness, "tolerance". I'm talking about what I would call the mainstream left but what you may call the crazy loving handicaps who have poisoned the left. And maybe you don't even consider those western ideals.

yeah i define "western ideals" as the ideological pieces that actually make up what we consider to be western society. i don't think any of those three things are a bad thing (i'm taking hate speech as people calling out hate speech, which i guess probably would just be PC anyway) in reasonable moderation, democracy is most effective when all individuals are considered equally valuable and that's something that all of those should help accomplish in theory.

of course, i'm sure you're referring to the more recent issues where it's not unreasonable to say that these things have been unfortunately used to put down valid concerns rather than acknowledging them as valid and allowing them representation. a kind of hand-waving dismissal that people use because they find themselves unable to compromise with polarized opinions. in this case it would definitely conflict with freedoms of expression that are also vital to the success of a democratic system. however, this certainly isn't something that's deeply ingrained in western society. i think it's much more so a political phenomenon than any kind of reformation to our fundamental beliefs. it's just a poor expression of the values we already hold.

btw here are some interesting statistics from pew about individual rights, goes on for seven pages
http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/18/global-support-for-principle-of-free-expression-but-opposition-to-some-forms-of-speech/

[McZealot]

Also, those people are pretty irrelevant when they're not the ones doing extreme stuff

Erm... typo? Because this doesn't make any sense. Also, it's insanely tribal.

The disagreeing party are irrelevant. So the BLF support bestiality because of Pie Crust? Even though he is just one user?

[McZealot]

Another thing. I see a lot of people speaking of Shariah Law as though it literally means CIA in control. Shariah Law is an expansive set of rules defined differently in nearly every society. It can range from mediocre things like handling trade to scary things like stoning gays. Most Muslims think it should only apply to Muslims as well. I definitely don't want it in America but statements like:

Anyone who subscribes to Sharia Law, [...] could easily be defined as "mentally ill"

seem to not quite grasp the diversity of the concept.

[Rally]

Another thing. I see a lot of people speaking of Shariah Law as though it literally means CIA in control. Shariah Law is an expansive set of rules defined differently in nearly every society. It can range from mediocre things like handling trade to scary things like stoning gays. Most Muslims think it should only apply to Muslims as well. I definitely don't want it in America but statements like: seem to not quite grasp the diversity of the concept.

Stoning gays to death ∈ Sharia Law. I might as well just say 'Sharia Law'.

[Whackin]

we should just have total anarchy, forget everything

are you actually this loving handicapped

[McZealot]

Stoning gays to death ∈ Sharia Law. I might as well just say 'Sharia Law'.

There are so many different versions of Sharia Law in different places that attributing one rule to all of it is a bit of a blanket statement.



You can see here that while a lot of countries under Sharia Law (most of the graphed countries are not) execute homoloveuals, many others do not. It's like saying "US Law says that Transgendered Students cant use the Opposite love's Bathroom". No, North Carolina law says that. Sharia Law is not a unified set of principals.

are you actually this loving handicapped

I assume he's joking.