Muslims break 2 minute silence

[direkiller]

Care to tell me why it is wrong to remove people who endanger other people by inciting religious supremacy and hatred bad for society as a whole? The Nazi's killed people because of religion etc, that is completely different from removing people because of others safety. If you think that is wrong, then clearly you must be opposed to prisons, which serve to remove people from society for society's safety.

None of what they did was Criminal so comparing it to jail is just idiotic
but if you want examples of what your suggesting:
Native Americans were segregated for there safty
Blacks were segregated in schools for there safety
Japanese-Americans were segregated for there safety in WW2
(Sorry don't know any British examples but i know there are some)

That is not that far off what the Nazi did and that is what you are suggesting. As soon as you start putting people away for there beliefs you no longer see them as a person. You only see the idea you want to die

http://www.youtube.com/user/theamazingatheist?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/22/oPC-isxrhTs
Freedom of speech sometimes means the bad-guys win

Eh, I meant that comparing the Nazi's to removing people from society to protect society is wrong, and if you are opposed to removing people from society to protect society as a whole, you must be opposed to prisons.
Blacks were not segregated for their safety, they were considered inferior, just like the Native Americans....And no, there aren't really any British examples as Britain never really did racism other than the slave trade 100's of years ago.
The Nazi's killed because of people's religion etc whereas I believe dangerous people should be removed from society....If you think they are the same you must think the criminal system is ran by Nazi's.....

The black segregation was "Separate but equal" and done to cull racial tensions
It was done for there safety

Native Americans were moved off there land so white encroachment did not interfere
it was done for there safety


also Bull on British not doing anthing baced or race(seance you bothered to bring that up here is a few)

America-War of 1812(no Canada this was not fought over divine right that started after this war)
India
Africa-still messed up to this day
Scotland-Yes you can be raciest to another British country
Ireland



And Yes i do believe in Prisons. What i don't believe in is political prisoners(and that is what you want). Someone locked up not for what they did but for what they believe in and how it clashes with your idea of a safe society.If you think the nazi only killed based on race your are sadly mistaken. However if you want someone else well known for locking up people for there ideas Stallion fits the bill.

 

[kafur]

"Please, don't throw the word "Muslims" around like that. The biggest prolem with this is the generalization of "extremists = all followers of one religion"

So, Taluen.... you dont agree that the Qran tells muslims to live alongside a civillisation until it is strong enough in members to overthrow that community and force Islam on it?

You dont think that Sharia is butchering, raping, burning, hanging and beheading all over the Islamic world..it is a religion of peace is it?

You dont think that women really do get imprisoned for being raped, then raped again in prison before they are stoned (to make sure they dont go to paradise in tact)?

You think this is a religion of peace do you?

You dont believe that in the uk MOST supermarkets are now selling halal meat and christians have to go to one main shop (morrisons) to make sure that they are not eating food that has had a miserable death as some religious fanatic has wailed about allah as he cut the poor beasts throat with a less than sharp knife.

This is a religion of peace is it?

You dont believe that Islam / sharia wants all homosexuals dead, and will oblige if they are not?

This is a religion of peace is it?

my fingers are tired, I could type all day but what the fuck..........

Muslims are liars, cheats and thugs............ they are ALL supremacist and think Islam rocks.. they are mentally ill believing in a false stone god.

 

[A Pious Cultist]

they are mentally ill believing in a false stone god.

Considering your preceding statements seem to imply you're Christian my immediate reaction would be "Fuck off", but that would get me banned from this forum pretty quickly.
When it comes to religion NO ONE has a leg to stand on when saying another person's beliefs are false.

There is no proof for or against any god, deity or supreme being of any kind.

This means two things:
1. You can believe what you want to, know one has the right to tell you its false purely because their own beliefs differ
2. They can believe what they want to, you don't have the right to tell them its false purely because your own beliefs differ

 

[The_Graff]

slightly amazed that not even the daily fail reported this one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328703/Remembrance-Day-Poppy-burning-Muslim-protesters-mar-Armistice-Day.html

i meant in the hard copy paper you get in the shops.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

i meant in the hard copy paper you get in the shops.

Well they couldn't have reported on it the day it happened as the papers were already out the press. The earliest they could have printed it was today.

Unless they're like bi-daily or something... I don't know I don't buy them.

 

[direkiller]

The black segregation was "Separate but equal" and done to cull racial tensions
It was done for there safety

Native Americans were moved off there land so white encroachment did not interfere
it was done for there safety


also Bull on British not doing anthing baced or race(seance you bothered to bring that up here is a few)

America-War of 1812(no Canada this was not fought over divine right that started after this war)
India
Africa-still messed up to this day
Scotland-Yes you can be raciest to another British country
Ireland



And Yes i do believe in Prisons. What i don't believe in is political prisoners(and that is what you want). Someone locked up not for what they did but for what they believe in and how it clashes with your idea of a safe society.If you think the nazi only killed based on race your are sadly mistaken. However if you want someone else well known for locking up people for there ideas Stallion fits the bill.

You must see the differences.
Blacks were kept separate because of racism being acceptable, Native Americans because of political and economical motivations. The poppy burning Muslims are simply violent religious fanatics.
I should have said modern Britain has not done anything race motivated for over a hundred years.

Roman Catholic Irish would like to have a word with you(Race/Religion close enough)

Claiming Africa is messed up because of colonies just shows you need to do your research as the colonies gave places like Kenya the best years of their country, whereas under their own rule it all fell apart.
How are the British racist to the Scottish? That's a laughable comment, as well as the Irish one, as you are just making that all up.

Irish see above
It fell apart because British rule left them with nothing to build on.(Similar to what would happen if we pulled out of Afghanistan immediately after ousting there government). British colony were setup to bleed resources out of the locals and then wipe your hands of them. So yes when you take away everything and give them nothing to stand on they will fail.

What kind of political view is mocking tradition, scoring the dead and fighting police? Really? Or did you use that buzz phrase without knowing what it really means? The Nazi's killed because of race, religion and other things like the disabled. I am opposed to segregation like that and anyone who thinks segregation is good, like those Muslims who are actively promoting occupational segregation, should be removed from society.

Clearly you think occupational segregation is a good thing? If so, your view is morally repulsive.

Why do you think that me saying that i believe they have the right to protest means i agree with what they say? (I don't its stupid) What i belive is they have the right to protest and you have the right to call them morons. You don't have the right to toss them in prison for what they believe.

The few that were violent to police were arrested(good for the police they deserve to get arrested)
The rest burning poppies in peaceful protest(good for the protesters)

 

[direkiller]

You must see the differences.
Blacks were kept separate because of racism being acceptable, Native Americans because of political and economical motivations. The poppy burning Muslims are simply violent religious fanatics.
I should have said modern Britain has not done anything race motivated for over a hundred years.

Roman Catholic Irish would like to have a word with you(Race/Religion close enough)

Claiming Africa is messed up because of colonies just shows you need to do your research as the colonies gave places like Kenya the best years of their country, whereas under their own rule it all fell apart.
How are the British racist to the Scottish? That's a laughable comment, as well as the Irish one, as you are just making that all up.

Irish see above
It fell apart because British rule left them with nothing to build on.(Similar to what would happen if we pulled out of Afghanistan immediately after ousting there government). British colony were setup to bleed resources out of the locals and then wipe your hands of them. So yes when you take away everything and give them nothing to stand on they will fail.

What kind of political view is mocking tradition, scoring the dead and fighting police? Really? Or did you use that buzz phrase without knowing what it really means? The Nazi's killed because of race, religion and other things like the disabled. I am opposed to segregation like that and anyone who thinks segregation is good, like those Muslims who are actively promoting occupational segregation, should be removed from society.

Clearly you think occupational segregation is a good thing? If so, your view is morally repulsive.

Why do you think that me saying that i believe they have the right to protest means i agree with what they say? (I don't its stupid) What i belive is they have the right to protest and you have the right to call them morons. You don't have the right to toss them in prison for what they believe.

The few that were violent to police were arrested(good for the police they deserve to get arrested)
The rest burning poppies in peaceful protest(good for the protesters)

Oh dear, you really shouldn't talk about conflicts you don't understand. The reason the RC Irish were excluded was because of religion, not race, and also due to the political reason of the unification of Ireland. Anyway, this really is just turning into a giant digression; do you have a point to all of this?
You need to really stop talking about things you know very little about. The British left a full working economy and infrastructure. The problems that occurred were due to the Africans in charge, such as corruption. Look at Zimbabwe. Once an exporter of food, and then it decided to occupy by force the white farms, and now they frequently have famines. Yeah, totally the white mans fault that....
Bleed resources from the locals? What the f**k have you been reading?? It gave the locals jobs and an infrastructure to the country. Wipe hands clean? You need to look at the facts and stop reading propaganda nonsense.

Did I say you shouldn't have the right to protest? No. I said that these people should be deported (at their own expense) or shot if they refuse to leave because they are violent fanatics who serve to cause problems for society.
You have to ask yourself though where do you draw the line between freedom of speech and inciting hatred and segregation which is exactly what these fanatics were doing - segregating military personnel and insulting their families. If you think they are allowed to do that, do you think I should have the 'right' to go outside and say all non-whites are going to burn in hell, and then fight the police?
Your view simply is dangerous as you will not take action against people who clearly are intolerant as they believe in segregation.

I said the RC Irish was because of religion(and sence when is Religious discrimination different from Race)

Fact:In India people starved because British produced cash crops(Tea,coffee,opium) to be exported
Fact:Indian textile industry was declared illegal so all there cloth had to be imported from GB
(on a good note they got Literacy, sanitation, and a railroad network)

Zimbabwe was exporting at the cost of itself and Brittan did not leave it in great as shape as you clame

That is how British Imperialism worked in all of there colonies im sorry your the one with the rose tinted glasses on with this one

And again they have the right just like the KKK,Black Panthers, Westborrow baptist. As long as there peacefully protesting there is nothing wrong with it. They can be walking down the street saying death to all infidels but as long as there doing it peacefully(you getting worked up over it is another matter entirely)

There bad idea has the right to be heard just as much as your bad idea to deport them

 

[direkiller]

Oh dear, you really shouldn't talk about conflicts you don't understand. The reason the RC Irish were excluded was because of religion, not race, and also due to the political reason of the unification of Ireland. Anyway, this really is just turning into a giant digression; do you have a point to all of this?
You need to really stop talking about things you know very little about. The British left a full working economy and infrastructure. The problems that occurred were due to the Africans in charge, such as corruption. Look at Zimbabwe. Once an exporter of food, and then it decided to occupy by force the white farms, and now they frequently have famines. Yeah, totally the white mans fault that....
Bleed resources from the locals? What the f**k have you been reading?? It gave the locals jobs and an infrastructure to the country. Wipe hands clean? You need to look at the facts and stop reading propaganda nonsense.

Did I say you shouldn't have the right to protest? No. I said that these people should be deported (at their own expense) or shot if they refuse to leave because they are violent fanatics who serve to cause problems for society.
You have to ask yourself though where do you draw the line between freedom of speech and inciting hatred and segregation which is exactly what these fanatics were doing - segregating military personnel and insulting their families. If you think they are allowed to do that, do you think I should have the 'right' to go outside and say all non-whites are going to burn in hell, and then fight the police?
Your view simply is dangerous as you will not take action against people who clearly are intolerant as they believe in segregation.

I said the RC Irish was because of religion(and sence when is Religious discrimination different from Race)

Fact:In India people starved because British produced cash crops(Tea,coffee,opium) to be exported
Fact:Indian textile industry was declared illegal so all there cloth had to be imported from GB
(on a good note they got Literacy, sanitation, and a railroad network)

Zimbabwe was exporting at the cost of itself and Brittan did not leave it in great as shape as you clame

That is how British Imperialism worked in all of there colonies im sorry your the one with the rose tinted glasses on with this one

And again they have the right just like the KKK,Black Panthers, Westborrow baptist. As long as there peacefully protesting there is nothing wrong with it. They can be walking down the street saying death to all infidels but as long as there doing it peacefully(you getting worked up over it is another matter entirely)

There bad idea has the right to be heard just as much as your bad idea to deport them

You were talking about the English when the Irish RC's was religious problems between the Irish, not Irish vs. English.

And how long ago was that with India? Over 100? So what is your point?
As for Zimbabwe, what the f**k does "Zimbabwe was exporting at the cost of itself" mean because it certainly did not have any famines when the British were there; instead it had law and order. The British didn't destroy the farms, the natives did, so point your finger at the right people and stop warping the past to suit your ridiculous views which are based on nothing other than ignorance.

So you really think that promoting segregation is a good thing? That in an ideal society, there is room for racists and religious fanatics? Well you go enjoy that society, I'll go find one which actually believe in equality and doesn't put up with PC bullsh*t. If you really think freedom of speech entails promoting hatred, racism, religious supremacy and occupational segregation, then you are a sick twisted individual as those views only serve to cause problems. If you cannot see that, then you are exceptionally naive and lack any sort of hindsight.

Why should you be allowed to say anything? Have you stopped and asked yourself if there are some things better not said, or do you just think people should be allowed to say whatever they want, just for the sake of it, instead of taking into account people's safety and well-being? Plus, you are mistaking freedom of speech with HATE SPEECH - speech which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic.

It's a dark day when people can't tell the difference between hate speech & the freedom of speech.

India gain Independence in 1945(as an example of British Racism within 100years like you said they did not do)

Im sorry you hate that PC bullshit but without it Woman would not be able to vote, segregation would not have stopped(MLK wasn't the only freedom fighter)"The ballot or the bullet explains itself" or "Stop Singing and start Swinging".Quotes from a Muslim Extremest fighting for a cause. All from a hate speech(basically saying let us vote or we start revolting)

The protesters are calling the war in Afghanistan unjust and trying to get the UK to leave. If you take a look at there cause and see this is a very efficient way to get people to talk about it. There is a method behind getting people riled up from the burning of a symbol.

As i said before Freedom of speech sometimes means the bad guys win. Let all ideas be heard and pick for yourself.

 

[MelziGurl]

And this is different from the asshole who burned copies of the Qur'an? I understand that you might have lost someone, but Muslims have the same emotional connection with the guy who was burning Qur'ans, so you have no fucking reason to act out because "this is personal." We're fighting a war against ignorance and all the spawn of ignorance, so shut the fuck up if you don't have anything constructive to add.

Two wrongs don't make it right.

And what is that supposed to mean? That we have a right to do appalling things to their religion because the did it to us? I believe that goes against every major religion and set of ethics that exists. Who's going to act mature and STOP MAKING SUCH AN EASY TARGET if they resent us due to poor education and corruption, and we can't pull our heads out of our asses for long enough to realize that we need to change?

And to state this again, what the fuck was your point?

What the fuck? Are you really that daft that you do not understand what I am trying to say? If that's the case, I'm not going to bother explaining it. Re-read your own post, then stew in your thoughts for a bit until you understand it.

I'm sorry, what you seem to be saying is that, since two wrongs don't make a right, then we shouldn't do shit about it. Please correct me if this is incorrect.

I thought there were enough idiots in the world...I've been proven wrong -_-

 

[Chewster]

How are you going to be the bigger man by making things organised? Why are you the bigger man because your lack of comprehensive skills prevents you from following this argument? Seriously? Why do I have the feeling you are a washed out 27 year old trying to make his severely uneducated opinion count for more than it is worth as both times you have started your replies with pretentious bullsh*t?

Mining my profile for ammunition for personal attacks. Really? Wow. Unfounded personal attacks and strawmen do not serve to make your argument stronger. I thought you preferred to employ logic?

And it makes me the bigger person because it makes it easier to follow the points and counterpoints, and if you are not willing to engage in the same way, it is going to make the continued exchange difficult to follow. More importantly, it forces you to face each point individually, which is something you don't have to do if you are addressing the post as a whole, ensuring (theoretically) that you have to actually address what is being said. It isn't hard to do, if you're not lazy. So thanks for indulging me and the others who are reading this.

And you can fucking swear on here without censoring yourself so fucking have at it.

No, that's not an analogy fail, you have grasped to understand the concept of hindsight. Protest against the war, but burning poppies and yelling during the two minute silence? That is just sh*t stirring and you have to be exceptionally naive to think otherwise. The fact that these protesters then clashed with police shows they were out for a fight, and if the protest had been dispersed before it had started, and innocent police officer would not have been injured.

It is hindsight that guns fire randomly, and for no reason? They do not. That is why your analogy fails. Sure it is important to understand the dangers and complexities of firearms, but without a person to do something, the gun is useless. This protest is not like a gun. Don't be hyperbolic.

In any case, you don't seem to understand that these protesters being dangerous themselves, has nothing to do with how much of a threat their message is to others, which I already pointed out. If they clashed with the police, that is much different then other people seeing their message, being influenced and then them clashing with police. Learn the difference and then talk to us about "hindsight".

The protest WAS a legitimate threat to the public because they got violent...The words they said and signs they held was done to simply cause unrest, proof being they attacked the cops.
Thing is, if you yell "Atheism rules! All religions are gateways to violence, down with all religious people" you could, I hope, support it logically as to why you think so. Religion has caused wars etc and so you'd have a logical grounding for your argument. It'd be a different case if you were shouting "All BLACKS are going to BURN IN HELL!" or start making other divisions due to gender, race or occupation because you have no rational argument.

Question for you: Do you think the Phelps should be allowed to say what they do wherever they like or do you think their restrictions are acceptable?

I propose removing people who are a danger to society. Nothing the Nazi's did was because of that reasoning - they killed people because of racism, anti-Semitism and feelings of racial superiority. You should be ashamed of yourself for repeating the same sh*t over and over whilst showing a clear lack of understanding of who the Nazi's were.

The act of protesting was a threat in this specific instance, yes, because of the individuals involved and their choice to get violent. I already said as much, so you're just repeating yourself now. Can we now move away from that, perhaps? Because that is not relevant to the discussion about their message, and the right to say it. You've yet to prove their message was also a threat to others or that it has caused other people to become violent as a result.

And you've yet to differentiate your brand of censorship from that of the Nazis, aside from yours being slightly less extreme. They took people away for having dissenting opinions. You propose the same, as you cannot prove that their message is an actual threat. It matters not the reasoning behind it. Deportation is not a reasonable response to this sort of message or protest.

And even if it were classified as hate speech or as inciting violence or whatever else, to play Devil's advocate to my own argument, so what? That is why you have courts and jails. Where would these people be deported to? What if they are second or third generation? Your proposition is fucking ludicrous.

And no, I wouldn't have any logical backing for that hypothetical argument, as religion is nothing more then a set of customs, rules or books. People kill other people, and the second that you attribute atrocities to things like religion, which is innate, you take responsibility away from individuals who have free will. Maybe that is the difference between you and I. You seem to think the public is easily swayed. I tend to think we have agency.

Besides of which, I was only using that as an example of some sort of protest, but from the other side of things. What I was hypothetically saying on the street corner is not of any real relevance. What is relevant is that people who are mentally sound are responsible for their own actions. That you think these guys are a legitimate threat to soldiers because their message is hateful, unpleasant and distasteful, is Goddamned silly. Again, do you honestly think the public is that easily influenced? Please answer this time.

FYI, I don't support Phelps and their message, no. I do support their right to protest on public property, as they have a right to say what they wish, provided it is not classified as hate speech or whatever else. That they protest funerals is in extremely bad taste and I think them all to be a bunch of hateful, blind fools, but I don't wish them deported for that. That is a fucking ludicrous proposition. Besides, people have come up with all manner of creative ways to thwart them anyhow and I don't believe in censoring them. That just means that their brand of bigotry will move underground.

Yes it is relevant because you have the power of hindsight. Going around yelling at people "IM BETTER THAN YOU BECAUSE OF REASONS I CANT PROVE" is a)not constructive in anyway and b)sh*t stirring showing that person is wanting to cause violence or at best, social unrest, neither or which are good. What is good and constructive? Views which when conveyed reasonably and rationally make sense and do not incite violence, hatred etc but reasonable debate e.g. say "The war in Iraq is wrong" because you can back it up with reasons such as there were no WMD's and therefore no need to be in Iraq, sparking rational debate whether or not prevention of WMD's is justifiable or not. Something which is not beneficial is segregating people because of their occupation, ethnicity, race, gender etc as that is well racist, sexist and occupational segregation.
If you think segregation is a view that should be promoted, then you are far more like the Nazi's then anyone else here.

So? Again, something doesn't have to be "constructive" it be legal. What is so hard for you to understand about that? Unpleasant though their message may be, they have a right to it. And where would the world be without social unrest and other upheavals? Civil rights in America would have stagnated. Health care in Canada would not be a modern reality. Social unrest isn't always a bad thing.

Strawmen from you though. I don't support their message (which I've said and implied, several times), so I do not support segregation. I do support their right to say their message. You, on the other hand, wish them to be removed from society. Which is segregation. Hilarious.

And for the third time, why do you get to decide what is constructive or not?

Oh because THEY clashed with police it's okay and certainly shows their protest was done with good intentions as well as being a beneficial to society because everyone likes injured police officers. Yah, cool story brah.
You've shown yourself to be a narrow minded liberal who is willing to let others segregate members of society and incite violence because you are too scared to get off the fence. Thankfully, you are not in the UK so your toxic views will not enter society here. Just pass on my sorrow to the Canadians for having to put up with your frankly dangerous and deluded views.

Again, personal attacks are not arguments. So much for logic.

And another strawman. How about that? I didn't say that it was OK that they got into it with the coppers. I did say that there is a difference between them doing so and them influencing others to do so, which you seem to think is a real threat, to the point of thinking they need to be deported. Which is absurd and disproportionate to what they did. I think that locking people up and exiling them on the pretense that their tiny protest and their distasteful signs is a supposed "threat" (even though it has yet been pointed out how) is a rather dangerous view, and one that threatens any free society because it advocates for extreme censorship, amongst other things.

And once again, pulling irrelevant politics into this is a diversion tactic, and one that takes away from legitimate debate. I guess you don't know what a strawman is after all and you clearly are not about logic or honest debate. If I didn't know any better, I'd wager that you're trolling.

Anyway, have fun making personal attacks and using illogical and fallacious arguments to promote an extremely fascist POV. I certainly hope your views never end up on the wrong side of everyone else, lest people advocate that you be deported some day.

 

[direkiller]

snip

snip

The both of you need to learn the difference between these two, as you clearly think anything can be said with freedom of speech:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Frankly the both of you two should be ashamed for not condemning or wanting to prevent the spread of occupational and religious segregation, unless you both think segregation has a place in society. If so, you are both wrong, go look up the Prisoners Dilemma if you want to know why.

Claiming that "Freedom of speech sometimes means the bad guys win" is just a pathetic cop-out of not wanting to draw a line between what can and cannot be said, for the safety of society and preservation of equality. Your view is dangerous at best, and frankly so weak that if you keep that attitude in life, expect to be walked all over (Go read Beyond Good & Evil). With freedom of speech comes personal responsibility to use it wisely and not incite hatred.

@chewbacca1010
"And you can fucking swear on here without censoring yourself so fucking have at it."
And I think that sums up the maturity of yourself quite aptly.
Plus just going to highlight how removing people from society because they are dangerous is not segregation, it's removing them because they are no longer part of society, they are either a)dead or b)in a different country - big difference and it is alarming you aren't aware of that difference.

Im sorry did you watch that video i linked to you earler its not a pathatic cop-out

1.There methods of protest were about the same as WBC at soldiers funerals here in US
(sorry i respect a funeral too much to post a video of them protesting there but in case you forgot who they were) http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80698342/
its moraly wrong(yes)
what there saying is the same thing (your solders are burring in hell)
Is it free speech yes are they peacefully protesting a war yes(the 32 that did not get arrested anyway)

2.game theory has nothing to do with this

3. If you want were i draw the line is intimation of outer to use there rights. I

but take a step backid they infringe apon your rites(no because your talking right now). Did they physically hurt you(no). You want to shoot them solely for there ideas and how they chose to spread them to the world. They only offended your personal beliefs get over it.

EDIT: Just because i want someone to have the right to protest dose not mean i support what they say. I don't support discrimination. Do i think they have a right to say what they want yes.

 

[Chewster]

@chewbacca1010
"And you can fucking swear on here without censoring yourself so fucking have at it."
And I think that sums up the maturity of yourself quite aptly.
Plus just going to highlight how removing people from society because they are dangerous is not segregation, it's removing them because they are no longer part of society, they are either a)dead or b)in a different country - big difference and it is alarming you aren't aware of that difference.

Yeah, so I guess you missed the part where personal attacks are not logical arguments. I'd say that sums up your maturity level quite aptly. Still, it was cute when you used my profile information as an attempt to personalize the insults a little bit more though (and I assume try and get under my skin, nice try son), and does show a degree of effort that you usually don't see from the other trolls on this site.

In sum (for those of you just joining us): you use fallacious arguments such ad hominems and strawmen constantly, ignore the point-by-point refutation of all your arguments, advocate that people be deported based on the fact that they hold controversial views and hold distasteful protests, think that all Muslims are on the dole based on one blog article (we all know blogs are super reputable) that says that some people from Pakistan have high levels of unemployment (making you a clear bigot), believe extreme fascist tactics should be used to silence those whom you do not agree with, hand are overall very averse to the use of logic, in lieu of emotive, reactionary responses.

Yeah, you're quite the bastion of maturity, old boy.

Anyway, I'm not interested in a childish insult pissing-match. If anyone wants to discuss the issue in a rational, logical manner, have at it. Just don't bother with Mazty. He is too busy looking up how old you are in an attempt to become a better troll. Welcome to ignore, child.

 

[direkiller]

Im sorry did you watch that video i linked to you earler its not a pathatic cop-out

1.There methods of protest were about the same as WBC at soldiers funerals here in US
(sorry i respect a funeral too much to post a video of them protesting there but in case you forgot who they were) http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80698342/
its moraly wrong(yes)
what there saying is the same thing (your solders are burring in hell)
Is it free speech yes are they peacefully protesting a war yes(the 32 that did not get arrested anyway)

2.game theory has nothing to do with this

3. If you want were i draw the line is intimation of outer to use there rights. I

but take a step backid they infringe apon your rites(no because your talking right now). Did they physically hurt you(no). You want to shoot them solely for there ideas and how they chose to spread them to the world. They only offended your personal beliefs get over it.

EDIT: Just because i want someone to have the right to protest dose not mean i support what they say. I don't support discrimination. Do i think they have a right to say what they want yes.

It is a cop out because by allowing anything to be said, you endanger people and also endanger equality by helping to promote segregationist views, unless you think segregation aids in equality.
WBBC were not allowed in the UK because they are known to simply protest with hate speech instead of a valid cause or reason.
Because you clearly did not read even the first sentence:

Hate speech is any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic. In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. ​

Saying soldiers will burn in hell is doing exactly that.

It is as simple as that. You are too soft to draw the line between hate speech and the freedom of speech.
Look at the social implications of Game Theory - it shows cooperation is the best way forward, therefore anyone not cooperating should be dealt with.

This is why I compared you to Joseph Stalin

Woman suffrage was not cooperating with the social norms
Catholics when the roman empire was around did not cooperate with social norms(and were dealt with)
(sorry but Game theory doesn't hold up too well when taken out of its hypothetical scenarios and shown in scenarios were it was put to extreme use)

So because they did not infringe on anyones rights (not rites), it's okay what they did? No, they were trying to segregate a group of people according to occupation. Did they hurt me? No, they hurt a police officer instead.

Ahh a person who makes rash generalizations calling me out on mine
your judging the actions of a group people base on the actions of 3 people

something about a pot and kettle idk

That is the pathetic liberal weakness that I am sick of hearing - "Because it didn't effect me, it's okay". What has that attitude ever done for anyone? Nothing, or more likely helped someone be trampled all over.
Stop making strawmen - I am not saying you do not have a right to protest, I'm saying that it should not be acceptable to spout hate speech. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE. Your view is dangerous & toxic and frankly your are a disgusting human being who will be walked all over in life because you have no spine and cannot draw the line between right and wrong until it directly affects yourself.

your judging the actions of many people base on the actions of 3 people

you said i dont belive in prisons becase i said they have the right to protest

and im the one makeing rash generations

Im not liberal i hate government control and prefer when people don't tell me or others how to live there lives. Im also not as spineless as you clame i have called people morons IRL for saying the same thing you have(group a should shoot group b for what they believe in).
P.S personal attacks are straw man augments(trying to refute an augment without confronting the argument)

I cant refute your opinions without pointing to somewhere else because your opinions are just that. They have no application in real life so i must point were something similar has been implemented(those situations were people deemed dangerous to society or social norms have been disposed off) and were it has ended very badly.

If you can point to were shooting/banishing protesters has been a good thing for society i'll be glad to hear it. Especially Religion protesters because martyrs always make the people who shot them look like the good guys.