Gnostic Bishop wrote:
Ditto.

That is how we learn.

I get no pleasure from winning a debate as then I only give the other one of the greatest pleasures of life. Learning something new.

I debate to gain the pleasure of losing it and the giving a loss or pleasure of learning to the other is secondary to me. In that I show a bit of greed but only because I love to learn new ways of thought. This scholar says it better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8 ... e=youtu.be

Exactly! I always tell people I am never set in my ways. I invite everyone to try and change my mind. Now that isn't to say I won't be aggressive on my side and really go rounds

mlmooney89 wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:
Ditto.

That is how we learn.

I get no pleasure from winning a debate as then I only give the other one of the greatest pleasures of life. Learning something new.

I debate to gain the pleasure of losing it and the giving a loss or pleasure of learning to the other is secondary to me. In that I show a bit of greed but only because I love to learn new ways of thought. This scholar says it better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8 ... e=youtu.be

Exactly! I always tell people I am never set in my ways. I invite everyone to try and change my mind. Now that isn't to say I won't be aggressive on my side and really go rounds

Ditto again.

To your other post.

I see the apparel in question is just the tip of the oppression that Muslim women are subject to and see a ban as us freeing the many while unfortunately oppressing the few who do wear this apparel by choice.

I see nothing vindictive in this. Unfortunate for the few, yes. Vindictive, no.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop wrote: I see the apparel in question is just the tip of the oppression that Muslim women are subject to and see a ban as us freeing the many while unfortunately oppressing the few who do wear this apparel by choice.
I see nothing vindictive in this. Unfortunate for the few, yes. Vindictive, no.

So if there is any compulsion exercised to restrict people's freedom of choice, then the required thing must be outlawed to protect other potential victims? If many men compel their wives to stay home and not get a job, then all women must have jobs? Unfortunate for those who don't want to, of course, but just the way the cookie crumbles?

I find this reasoning to be hard to follow.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: Unfortunately I did not save it.

The policy to which you refer is well known. You can find in explained Wikipedia as jizya. It appears to be much higher than the zaqat paid by Muslims.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: Further, one need not seek hard to find where Muslims have definitely targeted and killed many people of the book.

True, but not forced conversions or enslavement as the Yazidis faced. Presumably opposing them makes you subject to punishment whatever your background.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: Was it Sheiks who at one time wanted their custom of children wearing daggers in schools to be permitted?

Sikh men are supposed to carry a dagger, though it is often merely ceremonial, i.e. not sharp or long. It is part of their tradition that one is obligated to oppose bullying or other victimization of the weak. Many Sikhs have put their kids in private schools because of the policy.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: Indeed. While many other imams on the right wing encourage it.

True, that, especially in Sudan and Somalia, and perhaps Mauritania and Mali. However, the campaign against FGM has included a widely endorsed fatwa, while I am not aware of anything so official supporting the practice. Of course there are probably thousands of Donald Trump wannabes who despise such political correctness.

Harry Marks wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote: I see the apparel in question is just the tip of the oppression that Muslim women are subject to and see a ban as us freeing the many while unfortunately oppressing the few who do wear this apparel by choice.
I see nothing vindictive in this. Unfortunate for the few, yes. Vindictive, no.

So if there is any compulsion exercised to restrict people's freedom of choice, then the required thing must be outlawed to protect other potential victims? If many men compel their wives to stay home and not get a job, then all women must have jobs? Unfortunate for those who don't want to, of course, but just the way the cookie crumbles?

I find this reasoning to be hard to follow.

Apples and oranges.

Do you believe that Muslim men should be allowed to continue oppressing their wives and daughters?

If not, I am open to any workable solution.

For evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing.

Regards
DL

Harry Marks wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote: Unfortunately I did not save it.

The policy to which you refer is well known. You can find in explained Wikipedia as jizya. It appears to be much higher than the zaqat paid by Muslims.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: Further, one need not seek hard to find where Muslims have definitely targeted and killed many people of the book.

True, but not forced conversions or enslavement as the Yazidis faced. Presumably opposing them makes you subject to punishment whatever your background.

Indeed.

I was motivated to try to find this link again and with your help, I did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp9TTEXOrME

I found it hard to follow so found a transcript on it as well as another explaining the conditions of Omar.

http://counterjihadreport.com/2015/10/2 ... eal-islam/

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/wes ... s-of-omar/

Regards
DL

I asked D.B. Roy which articles, specifically, would be made illegal. What do people think who favor making illegal some types of garb worn in the Middle East? The hijab usually refers to the hair and neck covering, so I didn't know if this item would be banned as well. Would there be any thoughts on enforcement and penalties, since these are inseparable from law?

mlmooney89 wrote: I agree it's also bigotry but I say racist because you can't tell what a person is thinking, what their religion is, or anything personal when it's just men sitting on a plane.

There's a time for liberal-singing-kumbaya bullshit and there's a time for considering what is prudent in a given situation. If you're driving down a street in Detroit and the sidewalks are crowded with dozens of young black men sitting around congregating (I speak from experience because you WILL see this in Detroit), do you pull over and ask for directions or park there and go into a store based on the assumption that most blacks are not violent and anyone who would be afraid to do so is obviously a racist? Because I KNOW this: you're not getting out of that damn car and I know you're not and YOU know you're not. And if you did, you're an idiot because most blacks would tell you not to get out of your car or pull and try to talk to any of those guys and I also know this by experience. And I live in a predominantly black neighborhood just outside of Detroit where all my immediate neighbors are black except one. And anyone from Detroit will tell you to NEVER stop for gas after dark in Detroit. There's a time for being an annoying liberal dweeb and there's a time for not getting yourself killed doing something stupid because you want to prove how you're not a racist. If a group of Muslims get on my flight and I just don't like the feeling I'm getting from them, I'm getting off. If that makes me a racist--so what? It's not hurting them or anyone and, at worst, inconveniences me. But, once again, talk is EASY but when you find yourself actually faced with that choice--get off the flight or take your chances at 20,000 with a group of people who don't make you feel warm and fuzzy inside--you're getting off whether you think you are or not.

Or what if you're sitting in a bar and you notice it's starting to fill up with white guys with shaved heads. Do you stay? After all, if you leave, you're a racist who thinks just because a white guy has a shaved head that you know what he's thinking. Of course, you're getting out of there.

In order to hate them

I never said I hated anybody. I certainly don't hate blacks or I wouldn't live in this neighborhood but I also know when you're in a place and black guys who look in such a way that it makes you uncomfortable start showing up, you get out of there. You don't tempt fate.

DL is basing all of his presumptions on the fact that those men have dark skin, eyes, and hair.

That's funny because I have dark skin, eyes and hair. I'm not white. I am Japanese and American Indian and I have been mistaken many times for being Arab, Mexican, East Indian and "Turk".

I don't know if I am mistaken but I consider middle eastern a race in itself

Yes, you are mistaken--try looking it up to find out why. So who is the racist here?

and to me if you look at a person that is middle eastern and decide they are dangerous based solely on that fact I consider it racist.

It's not based solely on that and that's a surprisingly stupid thing to say. My racist prejudice again "Middle Easterners" is based more on data as this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1993321/posts