Posted by PigParty

So have I. Since they are opinions, and I too feel that I am right and you are wrong, we can agree to disagree, or I can at least.

My overall point for this thread is that we shouldn't judge an entire population based on the actions of a select few. Two correlating factors do not automatically equal a direct connection. Most of our prisons and crimes in America are committed by African Americans, but we don't think of all African Americans as criminals, nor are they criminals because they are African American. There's many more complex, deeper reasons for peoples' actions. There's over a billion peaceful Muslims in the world. It's wrong to generalize all of them because of the actions of a few. If they dedicate their lives to a book with teachings and ways of life - and out of 1.6 billion, a few thousand twist the words of it - then to say that the book itself is the problem isn't backed up by the statistics. There's far deeper problems other than simply saying the easy thing: that Islam is the problem.

You must know a lot about Islam; I'd like to see your PhDs in Tafsir, Hadith, Tawhid, and Fiqh, since you're saying that the problem is with a select few twisting up words.  

Islam/Muslims aren't the problem, they've just used that because it's one of the fastest growing religions in the world and primarily most who are muslim are from around the area they base themselves... It's an easy manipulating tactic and good recruitment strategy and it works, you don't have to know about the religion(because that ain't why they do it-they just have to believe in a god to go through with it)sure they play on words from it and praise the hell(omg i said hell ) Out of Allah aka God but the radicalisation has only came from years if not decades of bombings on there country as much as everyone will try shove that off and be on band wagon of 'nuke them all' that's the truth. You've already bombed the hell out of countries that was necessarily doing fk all(Bar there government but there people accepted the stuff they did there was no reason to be involved) We bombed them and still bombing places being like 'USA bombs ISIS base' when in reality ISIS have a ton of civilians around them - And what do you think happens when them civilians(who may already be living rough) see there families blown up, You really think they going to thank you, are they fk. That's the truth. You'll just create a new generation of terrorist.  

So pigparty, kosiris who lives in saudi arabia and is surrounded by islam is telling you its not the best. And you still say islam ISNT THAT BAD GUYS CMON.


get over your ignorant sjw ways  

Posted by Red

So pigparty, kosiris who lives in saudi arabia and is surrounded by islam is telling you its not the best. And you still say islam ISNT THAT BAD GUYS CMON.


get over your ignorant sjw ways

Someone who lives in Chicago and is surrounded by black people will tell you it's not the best. Yet will you say that black people are the bad guys? C'mon. It's too easy to link commonalities on the surface without diving in and looking at what is actually causing the problems.  

Posted by PigParty

Someone who lives in Chicago and is surrounded by black people will tell you it's not the best. Yet will you say that black people are the bad guys? C'mon. It's too easy to link commonalities on the surface without diving in and looking at what is actually causing the problems.

when did I say black people were bad, are you ******ed  

I blame the west  

Posted by Kosiris

You must know a lot about Islam; I'd like to see your PhDs in Tafsir, Hadith, Tawhid, and Fiqh, since you're saying that the problem is with a select few twisting up words.

I never said I was an expert. It's funny that you dismiss my opinion by bringing up something that would also dismiss your own and everyone else's opinion. It's only used against me, though, because you disagree with me.

So in an attempt to devalue an opinion of someone you disagree with (a problem seen a lot in society these days, I may add) you also devalued your own opinion and everyone else's.

Now that that's over, can we get back to actual substantive arguments, rather than petty bull**** like this?

Posted by Red

when did I say black people were bad, are you ******ed

When did I say you said that? Try reading my post, unless the problem is your comprehension skills. Then I can't help you with that.  

Posted by PigParty

I never said I was an expert. It's funny that you dismiss my opinion by bringing up something that would also dismiss your own and everyone else's opinion. It's only used against me, though, because you disagree with me.

So in an attempt to devalue an opinion of someone you disagree with (a problem seen a lot in society these days, I may add) you also devalued your own opinion and everyone else's.

Now that that's over, can we get back to actual substantive arguments, rather than petty bull**** like this?



When did I say you said that? Try reading my post, unless the problem is your comprehension skills. Then I can't help you with that.

You still trying with Red? It's clear he's unable to maintain an actual conversation with anyone. I'd put my energy towards other posters whose posts are actually readable.  

Posted by Sardon

I blame the west

What did I expect from a canadian poster lmao

Posted by SomeGuy

Way to set yourself up for round 2  

You do realize in Islam it states if you kill the life of one it is as if they killed the lives of all humanity.

Furthermore Shariah law (Which a lot of you have slandered off in the past few pages in regards to some of its rules) states that you should follow the law of the land, which the terrorist clearly didn't do as he commited murder which is clearly illegal.

Edit: Sorry I posted my opinion, even though I don't have " PhDs in Tafsir, Hadith, Tawhid, and Fiqh" so don't give it any credit.  

tl;dr kosiris lives in saudi has lived his life around islamic people, pigparty is more knowledgeable then kosiris  

Posted by PigParty

Someone who lives in Chicago and is surrounded by black people will tell you it's not the best. Yet will you say that black people are the bad guys? C'mon. It's too easy to link commonalities on the surface without diving in and looking at what is actually causing the problems.

I've gotta ask you, and this is just for the sake or argument and discussion, where do you draw the line between "linking commonalities" and seeing something as destructive and dangerous? What must happen for your opinion to change? I'm not saying you're wrong or I'm right, im wondering what would have to happen for you to think about it differently.

I'll continue on our other discussion, too, because I missed your response before and just found it.

Posted by PigParty

No one said America was perfect. It's immensely flawed, but the Constitution is based on the principals that all people have rights from birth. The Constitution has allowed America to progress, to illegalize slavery, to give women the right to vote, to prevent the police from seizing evidence illegally. The Constitution is to he interpreted, and the courts change their interpretations over time and based on the ideologies of society. The world will never be perfect. America will never be perfect. The Constitution was made so that we as a country can always continue to work towards perfection, knowing it will never be achieved. No one expected the Constitution to make the government perfect from the get-go, but it has allowed America to grow

But we don't want to move toward "perfection" when it comes to human rights. Unless you're arguing that perfection is where we are now.

let's look at the United Nations voting record I mentioned. Recall that the United States has veto power, meaning if we say no then the entire bill is not passed.
111 yes, 1 no (US) World Charter for protection of the ecology
131 yes, 1 no (US) The right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference
132 yes, 1 no (US) Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc. are human rights
146 yes, 1 no (US) Protection against products harmful to health and the environment
94 yes, 2 no (US) Need for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua
48 yes, 2 no (US) The right to development
52 yes, 1 no (US) The right to food
52 yes, 1 no (US) The right to everyone to the enjoyment of the highest standard of physical and mental health
52 yes, 1 no (US) Rights of the child
51 yes, 1 no (US) Protection of the human rights of civilians in armed conflicts
49 yes, 3 no (US) Human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises

I think that makes the case pretty clear on how we view the rights of citizens and people. Now, you could try and make the argument that the US should not attempt to grant positive human rights, and only negative human rights should be accepted/used (in case you're unfamiliar click here). But if that's the case you can't argue that the constitution/US is furthering human rights, can you? Unless when you said that you meant just protecting negative human rights. If that's what you mean than you are 100% correct, but must concede that food, healthcare, water, education, ect. are not rights.

Sure, the courts can make changes of their interpretations, but what about rulings like this? The Infamous ruling that declared that corporations were people. Do the people of the United States really think that corporations are people? I doubt that matches our ideology. What about the Dredscott ruling? I understand that, in the second example, the court later changed the ruling. But, if the constitution was based on the rights of ALL people, that ruling should have never happened. But this does not make one put that much faith in the Supreme Court, does it? There are only two arguments that can be used against Dredscott that I can think of, and both are pretty bad for the Supreme Court.
A. The courts were biased and corrupt in that ruling (That would imply the court system is vulnerable to influence outside the constitution and what is says)
B. The constitution did not protect their rights until outrage insued (This would imply that the constitution can be manipulated as to not protect certain races or intrensic characteristics of people).
Both of those arguments have bad implications for the Supreme Court.

But if you've got counter arguments to either of those assertions, by all means speak out. I'm interested in what you have to say.  

Posted by Areo

Spoiler

I've gotta ask you, and this is just for the sake or argument and discussion, where do you draw the line between "linking commonalities" and seeing something as destructive and dangerous? What must happen for your opinion to change? I'm not saying you're wrong or I'm right, im wondering what would have to happen for you to think about it differently.

I'll continue on our other discussion, too, because I missed your response before and just found it.

But we don't want to move toward "perfection" when it comes to human rights. Unless you're arguing that perfection is where we are now.

let's look at the United Nations voting record I mentioned. Recall that the United States has veto power, meaning if we say no then the entire bill is not passed.
111 yes, 1 no (US) World Charter for protection of the ecology
131 yes, 1 no (US) The right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference
132 yes, 1 no (US) Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc. are human rights
146 yes, 1 no (US) Protection against products harmful to health and the environment
94 yes, 2 no (US) Need for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua
48 yes, 2 no (US) The right to development
52 yes, 1 no (US) The right to food
52 yes, 1 no (US) The right to everyone to the enjoyment of the highest standard of physical and mental health
52 yes, 1 no (US) Rights of the child
51 yes, 1 no (US) Protection of the human rights of civilians in armed conflicts
49 yes, 3 no (US) Human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises

I think that makes the case pretty clear on how we view the rights of citizens and people. Now, you could try and make the argument that the US should not attempt to grant positive human rights, and only negative human rights should be accepted/used (in case you're unfamiliar click here). But if that's the case you can't argue that the constitution/US is furthering human rights, can you? Unless when you said that you meant just protecting negative human rights. If that's what you mean than you are 100% correct, but must concede that food, healthcare, water, education, ect. are not rights.

Sure, the courts can make changes of their interpretations, but what about rulings like this? The Infamous ruling that declared that corporations were people. Do the people of the United States really think that corporations are people? I doubt that matches our ideology. What about the Dredscott ruling? I understand that, in the second example, the court later changed the ruling. But, if the constitution was based on the rights of ALL people, that ruling should have never happened. But this does not make one put that much faith in the Supreme Court, does it? There are only two arguments that can be used against Dredscott that I can think of, and both are pretty bad for the Supreme Court.
A. The courts were biased and corrupt in that ruling (That would imply the court system is vulnerable to influence outside the constitution and what is says)
B. The constitution did not protect their rights until outrage insued (This would imply that the constitution can be manipulated as to not protect certain races or intrensic characteristics of people).
Both of those arguments have bad implications for the Supreme Court.

But if you've got counter arguments to either of those assertions, by all means speak out. I'm interested in what you have to say.

It's hard to answer your first question because each scenario is different. There has to simply be enough evidence to accurately make a connection between two things. Even then, the amount of evidence required is based on each individual's opinion, and differs with each situation. But the easiest recognizable relationship between two things is often not the cause when it comes to complex things such as human behavior.

As for the UN votes, I've learned that when it comes to votes on bills & any peice of legislation, there's often a caveat, small or large, that causes votes to be for or against certain bills. I don't know any specifics of any of the UN votes mentioned above, but I know that no one votes a certain way for no reason. The US wouldn't vote against human rights unless there was an issue surrounding practicality, finances, or something to make them vote no. Same goes with any country. I see political commercials each election year about local representatives having voted some way on an issue, and it makes you think what kind of person with a heart and brain would vote that way? Then I google it and find out there was some line in the bill that would have given millions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy, or other stupid, usually unrelated things that are put into these bills. So anyways, with the UN votes, I don't know enough and probably never will to actually understand why the US voted the way they did.

As for the Constitution/SCOTUS, yes, the idea is to work towards a perfect society. The Constitution was never intended to be perfect from the get-go, which is why Amendments were actually made immediately after it was enacted, and why we can still amend it today. When the SCOTUS changes precedent, they say that the prior ruling was wrong. The Court initially ruled that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. It took many years to start selective incorporation of the amendments, and the SCOTUS said those rights always applied to state/local governments, but that the previous interpretation was wrong. The point of the Constitution is to allow the country to grow. We had slavery even under the Constitution, but the Constitution allowed us to fix that over time. We live in a nation in which 9 imperfect humans are making life-changing decisions and interpretations of the Constitution. We're not always going to be right, but we're always going to be able to get there eventually. I'm admittedly biased in all of this, though, because I'm really interested in constitutional law.  

that concert was a blast

too soon, ik
pls don't kill me
shmegg the egg, pls spare me