Gay Rights vs Islamic Rights

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Good post. Your stance is too.....diplomatic. Most of the people who post in gdf are xenophobic homophobes with little to no regard for intellectual discussion. Valid talking points are casually discarded. It's disheartening but meh what can u do? In order to achieve any semblance of a discussion or debate youd need both adjacent sides to have some. ...decorum. It's pretty much nonexistent here.

Ha. Well. I agree, it's probably too diplomatic. But I have to overcompensate a bit so as not to get dragged down when I'm met with such vitriol.

Same issue I have with gun control. I don't really have a side. But the "debate" surrounding it is impossible to penetrate from an undecided standpoint. It's all agenda-laden rhetoric.

But I actually find it interesting when I get pulled onto different teams, so to speak, in debates. So like, I'm an atheist, and have readily contributed to talking about the collective evils of religion, not just on KMC but irl. In most other settings, I would NOT be its defender. And honestly, I'm not sure I am here either. I'm only a defender of those who don't do evil in the name of their religion. Frankly, most religions as a whole can rot for all I care.

But though he didn't specifically call me out on this yet, TI's OP lumps "liberals" together in something of an odd group. I would suspect that, by not openly condemning all of Islam quite enough, I likely hit the prerequisite for being an overly mushy, hand-holding liberal. I actually smiled thinking of that, because of the absurdity of it; that I could somehow be a proponent of irreligion yet a defender of arguably religion's most violent sect(s) right now. I do enjoy being a contradiction. 😊

The Pride Festival I'm going to tomorrow allows firearms. That might not be a case-in-point in and of itself, but I feel like no single cultural group really lives up to the stereotype thrust upon it by its greatest detractors.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Good post. Your stance is too.....diplomatic. Most of the people who post in gdf are xenophobic homophobes with little to no regard for intellectual discussion. Valid talking points are casually discarded. It's disheartening but meh what can u do? In order to achieve any semblance of a discussion or debate youd need both adjacent sides to have some. ...decorum. It's pretty much nonexistent here.

You didn't provide any intellectual discussion your just interjecting an opinion of nothing, making posts here means more then big words with little meaning or substance. Psudeointelledtuals is why this country is in decline. The pajamaboys and pajamboy culture has ruined this country. And you suddenly deciding to post in the GDF is rather odd. Seems the Star Wars and CBVF people all get bored with the time wasting debates and actually want to talk about something non fictional, or are you here to just try and stir the pot?

Originally posted by Digi
Ha. Well. I agree, it's probably too diplomatic. But I have to overcompensate a bit so as not to get dragged down when I'm met with such vitriol.

Same issue I have with gun control. I don't really have a side. But the "debate" surrounding it is impossible to penetrate from an undecided standpoint. It's all agenda-laden rhetoric.

But I actually find it interesting when I get pulled onto different teams, so to speak, in debates. So like, I'm an atheist, and have readily contributed to talking about the collective evils of religion, not just on KMC but irl. In most other settings, I would NOT be its defender. And honestly, I'm not sure I am here either. I'm only a defender of those who don't do evil in the name of their religion. Frankly, most religions as a whole can rot for all I care.

But though he didn't specifically call me out on this yet, TI's OP lumps "liberals" together in something of an odd group. I would suspect that, by not openly condemning all of Islam quite enough, I likely hit the prerequisite for being an overly mushy, hand-holding liberal. I actually smiled thinking of that, because of the absurdity of it; that I could somehow be a proponent of irreligion yet a defender of arguably religion's most violent sect(s) right now. I do enjoy being a contradiction. 😊

The Pride Festival I'm going to tomorrow allows firearms. That might not be a case-in-point in and of itself, but I feel like no single cultural group really lives up to the stereotype thrust upon it by its greatest detractors.

Dear God...

Time, stop worrying about every post contributing to whatever Great Important Thing you think is happening here. She decided to respond to me. Take away "opinions of nothing" and this forum would be a few tumbleweeds and vultures picking on corpses.

No, your not fooling anyone dude, you just typed up a bunch of big words together, they don't mean anything. You don't have any real points. Why? Cause you either can't or wont, or are unable to.

i'm about to masturbate

"You don't have points" and "get out of my thread" don't give me much to work with. For the record, I didn't come here in bad faith. As (literally) a decade can attest, I don't mind conversing with those who disagree with me, or on topics where I know I don't have all the facts and there is information to be gained from others. But since you're openly wondering why people don't post here, this is at least part of your answer. Anyway...

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No, your not fooling anyone dude, you just typed up a bunch of big words together, they don't mean anything. You don't have any real points. Why? Cause you either can't or wont, or are unable to.

Excellent rebuttal. You're right, the big words are just for show. If I might offer a true response...

YouTube video

Originally posted by Digi

Excellent rebuttal. You're right, the big words are just for show. If I might offer a true response...

Originally posted by Digi
Excellent rebuttal. You're right, the big words are just for show.

TBH your posts fit perfectly this mode and I am positive you may be aware of that.

I find your intellectual stance wanting, and it appears you are overcompensating this deficiency with empty rhetoric. This will not fly here.

Can you make a sound argument for, or against violence against homosexuals perpetrated by Radical Muslims?

Do you have anything to say about the apparent clash between gay rights and "Muslim" rights? (which we shall understand to mean Radical Muslims' approach to homosexuality).

I hope you can demonstrate you are focused on the issue and not wiggling out by invoking third parties (Christians, Ted Cruz etc.) in a discussion that is not centered on them.

I await your response. 👆

If we, unnaturally, define "Muslim rights" as "certain radical Muslim's desire to persecute against gay people" then they would be in clash, however, I believe everyone here comes down on the side of gay rights in this case, for one, since they are not aggressors or perpetrate violence.

If we however define "Muslim rights" in the much more common and natural way that Muslims should have the right to not be persecuted solely for being Muslim, and to be treated fairly and equal under the law, then these two rights do not stand in conflict.

Is that a sufficient answer to your question, Stigma?

Originally posted by Bardock42
If we, unnaturally, define "Muslim rights" as "certain radical Muslim's desire to persecute against gay people" then they would be in clash, however, I believe everyone here comes down on the side of gay rights in this case, for one, since they are not aggressors or perpetrate violence.

If we however define "Muslim rights" in the much more common and natural way that Muslims should have the right to not be persecuted solely for being Muslim, and to be treated fairly and equal under the law, then these two rights do not stand in conflict.

Is that a sufficient answer to your question, Stigma?

Also, this could work if majority of Muslims worldwide were not radicalized... but they are as we find in the Pew Research study cited by Ben Shapiro.

I think you are also mixing up the the notions of rights and freedoms, but that is for entirely different discussion.

So no, your response is not sufficient, given the depth of the issue 👆

Even if a majority of Muslims were radicalized in a violent anti-gay manner, which the random youtube video was far from proving, Muslims would still deserve rights which do not infringe upon other people's.

The OP asked which rights progressives will choose in a conflict regarding Muslim and Gay rights...when defining Muslim rights the way progressive people define them, I can not answer which they would choose, but we can explain that Muslim rights and Gay rights as progressives support them do not stand in conflict, so the basis of the question is flawed.

We can then go on to discuss the definition of Muslim rights you would like us to discuss, and in that case the answer is that Muslim rights as you, contrary to basically everyone else, define them are not something that progressives are in favor of, so the answer to the OP would be "they will and have always chosen gay right's in this question".

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even if a majority of Muslims were radicalized in a violent anti-gay manner,

Originally posted by Bardock42
which the random youtube video was far from proving,

Shapiro cited research data, you handwave it with "no u" response. Very dishonest 👆

Also, BIG FAT LOL @ you calling one of the most influencial conservative commentators and critics "random". Once again, very dishonest 👆

Originally posted by Bardock42
Muslims would still deserve rights which do not infringe upon other people's.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The OP asked which rights progressives will choose in a conflict regarding Muslim and Gay rights...when defining Muslim rights the way progressive people define them, I can not answer which they would choose, but we can explain that Muslim rights and Gay rights as progressives support them do not stand in conflict, so the basis of the question is flawed.

We can then go on to discuss the definition of Muslim rights you would like us to discuss, and in that case the answer is that Muslim rights as you, contrary to basically everyone else, define them are not something that progressives are in favor of, so the answer to the OP would be "they will and have always chosen gay right's in this question".

Anyways, the question posed was thoroughly answered, I understand you would like there to be more of an argument but it's really simple. Where certain Muslims want to infringe on the rights of gay people, progressives are against it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Anyways, the question posed was thoroughly answered, I understand you would like there to be more of an argument but it's really simple. Where certain Muslims want to infringe on the rights of gay people, progressives are against it.

That's ok, but then again, perhaps you should not come in and make arguments characterized by "no u" responses and empty platitudes. 👆

Anyways, I'm off to have lunch and do a bunch of some cool stuff with friends. Any responses I'll address tomorrow, possibly. (I'm looking at you, Digi).

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even if a majority of Muslims were radicalized in a violent anti-gay manner, which the random youtube video was far from proving, Muslims would still deserve rights which do not infringe upon other people's.

The OP asked which rights progressives will choose in a conflict regarding Muslim and Gay rights...when defining Muslim rights the way progressive people define them, I can not answer which they would choose, but we can explain that Muslim rights and Gay rights as progressives support them do not stand in conflict, so the basis of the question is flawed.

We can then go on to discuss the definition of Muslim rights you would like us to discuss, and in that case the answer is that Muslim rights as you, contrary to basically everyone else, define them are not something that progressives are in favor of, so the answer to the OP would be "they will and have always chosen gay right's in this question".

You went from this, to being countered on every point

Originally posted by Bardock42
Anyways, the question posed was thoroughly answered, I understand you would like there to be more of an argument but it's really simple. Where certain Muslims want to infringe on the rights of gay people, progressives are against it.

To this. You basically lied about everything, tried to write off Shapiro as some second rate opinion that is below your complete lack of understanding. As of right now you sit in a country being destroyed and you can't say shit about it. Why do you even come here anymore? What leg do you have to stand on besides your fake eSJW.

You don't do a damn thing for any Syrians or Muslims that you claim to love so much and are willing to just hand over your way of life too.

Originally posted by Stigma
They are according to Pew Research study.

Shapiro cited research data, you handwave it with "no u" response. Very dishonest 👆

Also, BIG FAT LOL @ you calling one of the most influencial conservative commentators and critics "random". Once again, very dishonest 👆

Yes, they need to re-check and re-shape their understanding of rights, as the ones they claim to have infringe upon the well-being of homosexuals. This is obvious.

This is insubstantial given that you do not accept data that most Muslims are radicalized. It's actually sad.

So you notice how the progressives are trying to careful bob and weave around the Op? By basically trying to now deny Muslims "rights" as a term.

Very relevant info here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/

Here are the 10 countries where homosexuality may be punished by death

Yemen: According to the 1994 penal code, married men can be sentenced to death by stoning for homosexual intercourse. Unmarried men face whipping or one year in prison. Women face up to seven years in prison.

Iran: In accordance with sharia law, homosexual intercourse between men can be punished by death, and men can be flogged for lesser acts such as kissing. Women may be flogged.

Mauritania: Muslim men engaging in homosexual sex can be stoned to death, according to a 1984 law, though none have been executed so far. Women face prison.

Nigeria: Federal law classifies homosexual behavior as a felony punishable by imprisonment, but several states have adopted sharia law and imposed a death penalty for men. A law signed in early January makes it illegal for gay people countrywide to hold a meeting or form clubs.

Qatar: Sharia law in Qatar applies only to Muslims, who can be put to death for extramarital sex, regardless of sexual orientation.

Saudi Arabia: Under the country’s interpretation of sharia law, a married man engaging in sodomy or any non-Muslim who commits sodomy with a Muslim can be stoned to death. All sex outside of marriage is illegal.

Afghanistan: The Afghan Penal Code does not refer to homosexual acts, but Article 130 of the Constitution allows recourse to be made to sharia law, which prohibits same-sex sexual activity in general. Afghanistan’s sharia law criminalizes same-sex sexual acts with a maximum of the death penalty. No known cases of death sentences have been meted out since the end of Taliban rule in 2001.

Somalia: The penal code stipulates prison, but in some southern regions, Islamic courts have imposed sharia law and the death penalty.

Sudan: Three-time offenders under the sodomy law can be put to death; first and second convictions result in flogging and imprisonment. Southern parts of the country have adopted more lenient laws.

United Arab Emirates: Lawyers in the country and other experts disagree on whether federal law prescribes the death penalty for consensual homosexual sex or only for rape. In a recent Amnesty International report, the organization said it was not aware of any death sentences for homosexual acts. All sexual acts outside of marriage are banned.

Originally posted by Stigma
LOL. OK, Digi, I need you to stop right there.

TBH your posts fit perfectly this mode and I am positive you may be aware of that.

I find your intellectual stance wanting, and it appears you are overcompensating this deficiency with empty rhetoric. This will not fly here.

If you wanted me to jump back in after nothing but insults from TI, this isn't the best start.

And empty rhetoric flies here regularly. We should embroider it on the KMC flag. I got to post an Emperor's New Groove video, so I'm doing pretty good, considering.

Originally posted by Stigma
Can you make a sound argument for, or against violence against homosexuals perpetrated by Radical Muslims?

Did I miss something in this question? You want me to make a sound argument for or against violence against homosexuals by radical Muslims. I'm against it. And my argument is that it's bad.

*looks around for Aston Kutcher and a film crew*

Originally posted by Stigma
Do you have anything to say about the apparent clash between gay rights and "Muslim" rights? (which we shall understand to mean Radical Muslims' approach to homosexuality).

I hope you can demonstrate you are focused on the issue and not wiggling out by invoking third parties (Christians, Ted Cruz etc.) in a discussion that is not centered on them.

I await your response. 👆

Not centered on them, no. But homophobic violence didn't begin in Orlando. We're watching growing pains. "Radical Islam" is just piling on to an already-maligned group in an already-waging cultural war. So rather than get sucked in to the latest story of the week, yes, I think we're looking at larger issues here.

Anyway. Bardock wrote "Where certain Muslims want to infringe on the rights of gay people, progressives are against it," and I'm happy to cosign that statement. It seems a pretty uncontroversial viewpoint, imo, but apparently is? Or it's misconstrued to be something else? I'm not entirely sure what I'm debating against at this point, so I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.
...

I think the biggest issue here is context. When I came into this thread, TI's eldritch vomit was the biggest presence in the thread. My responses were with him in mind. The points about not lumping all Muslims in to the equation were mostly because I had to play Mister Rogers in the face of such vitriol. It wasn't even relevant to acknowledge radical Islam. I was too busy trying to save the baby lost in TI's bathwater.

Originally posted by Digi
If you wanted me to jump back in after nothing but insults from TI, this isn't the best start.

Originally posted by Digi
And empty rhetoric flies here regularly. We should embroider it on the KMC flag. I got to post an Emperor's New Groove video, so I'm doing pretty good, considering.

Originally posted by Digi
Did I miss something in this question? You want me to make a sound argument for or against violence against homosexuals by radical Muslims. I'm against it. And my argument is that it's bad.

Originally posted by Digi
Not centered on them, no. But homophobic violence didn't begin in Orlando. We're watching growing pains.

Originally posted by Digi
"Radical Islam" is just piling on to an already-maligned group in an already-waging cultural war.

Originally posted by Digi
So rather than get sucked in to the latest story of the week, yes, I think we're looking at larger issues here.

Originally posted by Digi
Anyway. Bardock wrote "Where certain Muslims want to infringe on the rights of gay people, progressives are against it," and I'm happy to cosign that statement.

The problem is that Bardock outright dismisses data and facts (Pew Research poll, CNN poll on British Muslims) that explicitly state that it is actually the majority of Muslims who are radicalized and homophobic. Thus, Burdock’s stance can be characterized as insincere.

Do you share his position?

Originally posted by Digi
It seems a pretty uncontroversial viewpoint, imo, but apparently is?

Originally posted by Digi
Or it's misconstrued to be something else? I'm not entirely sure what I'm debating against at this point, so I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.

Originally posted by Digi
I think the biggest issue here is context. When I came into this thread, TI's eldritch vomit was the biggest presence in the thread. My responses were with him in mind. The points about not lumping all Muslims in to the equation were mostly because I had to play Mister Rogers in the face of such vitriol. It wasn't even relevant to acknowledge radical Islam. I was too busy trying to save the baby lost in TI's bathwater.

However, I must say I can easily claim the same and equate Bardock’s or Lestov’s or anyone else’s points to “eldritch vomit.” I won’t do that though, given that they cannot respond due to their ban.

While I think it’s acceptable to taunt other posters for the quality of their posts (in a civilized, but harsh manner), I think you should not do that to someone who is prevented from responding. It’s not cool 👆