Are you with UN "global" law prohibition the provocation "mock/insult/lie", about all religions ?

[Draka]

i am not double talk ,if i said something in PM or thread ,i will not shy to show the people about it , i don't have anything to hide in my PM, and i don't have double stand,my opinion in PM is NOT different than what i post in threads.

yes i admit that i got angry sometimes(over reaction) from some people , and i had the courage to said "i am sorry".

You have no idea what I'm talking about obviously. So why not drop trying to bother with responding to that, since it isn't even the point anyway, and try on my last point for size. Go look for it a page back, I quoted myself just to bring it up again so it would be handy. You're guilty of doing exactly what you want illegal. Go get my post and read it.

 

[Looncall]

He seems to do a lot of double-talking here on this point. He won't view what he finds acceptable as "wife-beating", he labels it differently as "soft-beating" and "marital correction" so as to justify it in his mind as something completely different and therefore not abusive. That way he can think himself as not guilty of an abusive mindset.

I had an ex-husband like that. He had a clear idea of what was abuse in his head, which was beating with fists like he would another man. To him, as long as he wasn't doing that then he wasn't abusing me. It left a lot open, which included slapping, throwing, grabbing, strangling, and threatening with weapons.

Roping something off in one's mind as "this is what is abuse and only this" and locking other things out to excuse yourself those things is highly dangerous and setting oneself up as a dangerous person. This is something Godobeyer, and obviously others, must learn.

This is beside the point of the thread though. I'd really love him to address my former post.

This sad situation illustrates the peril of text-based religion. Here we have a presumably-decent person unable to escape ancient barbarities because they are prescribed in his religious texts. He cannot progress morally.

 

[Rakhel]

I believe in every religion had laws looks like extrem for other people , if we ban a law islamic religion that mean we could ban islam too ,in this case all religions will be ban .

so are you beginning to see how problematic this ban could be?

 

[Father Heathen]

I believe in every religion had laws looks like extrem for other people , if we ban a law islamic religion that mean we could ban islam too ,in this case all religions will be ban .

If your religion cannot exist without victimizing innocent people, then perhaps it shouldn't.

 

[Bismillah]

Not everyone is calling for a "ban". King Abdullah of Jordan called for a condemnation for such material and I don't see why not. If it had been similar material published by Hamas against Judaism it would be anti-semitic and would be labeled hate speech and rightly so. So when a conservative group backs such material targeting Islam why is not hate speech but freedom of speech. Yes I agree, it should be protected under the first amendment, but there is a marked difference between one being hate speech against minorities in the former and the latter being some type of heroic or commendable stand against "creeping Shari'ah".

 

[Father Heathen]

Not everyone is calling for a "ban". King Abdullah of Jordan called for a condemnation for such material and I don't see why not. If it had been similar material published by Hamas against Judaism it would be anti-semitic and would be labeled hate speech and rightly so. So when a conservative group backs such material targeting Islam why is not hate speech but freedom of speech. Yes I agree, it should be protected under the first amendment, but there is a marked difference between one being hate speech against minorities in the former and the latter being some type of heroic or commendable stand against "creeping Shari'ah".

I think even hate speech should fall beneath freedom of speech.

 

[Penumbra]

I think even hate speech should fall beneath freedom of speech.

In the U.S., hate speech is protected unless it passes over certain boundaries.

Areas where it starts becoming unlawful include incitement to violence and defamation (which is difficult to prove because it basically has to be shown that the person was intentionally lying rather than just wrong).

 

[Kerr]

i am with ban abuse the women in first place Islamic world (where i living)
second of all i don't considerate the verse of Quran or Hadith as abuse to women .
i believe it's just mariage solution for such problem .

But it doesnt matter if its abusive or not. What matters is that there are some who finds it extremely offensive, which is exactly the kind of thing the law you promote is supposed to ban.

 

[Kerr]

I believe in every religion had laws looks like extrem for other people , if we ban a law islamic religion that mean we could ban islam too ,in this case all religions will be ban .

And there you have a problem with the law you promote .

 

[MysticSang'ha]

And there you have a problem with the law you promote .

Well, yeah. Precisely.

 

[jazzymom]

I believe in every religion had laws looks like extrem for other people , if we ban a law islamic religion that mean we could ban islam too ,in this case all religions will be ban .

Beating women to keep them in line and to correct behavior you don't like is extreme.

Banning the beating of women would not be banning Islam but it would be banning a practice that in the modern age is seen and is assault and battery.

It is assault and battery and extreme and unacceptable.

 

[Debater Slayer]

i hate to repeat my opinion , i am with what verse and hadith said about beating-wife, not using the verse to abuse the women ,ok ?

You mean that the interpretation you adopt of the verse makes you support wife-beating; I don't think all Muslims assume the same stances when it comes to religious texts. Some issues aren't that black-&-white as to allow for only one interpretation or stance to be 'right' and the others wrong.

But you still haven't answered my question. If you really don't try to justify abusing women yet still accept wife-beating, is it correct to infer that you don't view wife-beating as a form of abuse?

If you answer the question above in the affirmative, then I think that many people would disagree with you and even find your views offensive and provocative. Who is to say, then, that you shouldn't be banned from expressing them under the same premises you're basing your arguments on?

the green light ;is show some of our dialogues in PM , to proof that i am not lying .

I don't see the necessity to do so; I believe I have made my stance on this issue quite clear in this thread and others.

Also, I wouldn't really like private messages (emphasis on 'private') being posted in the open forums. I think that would be a breach of privacy as well as confidentiality of PMs between individual members.

I wouldn't try to jump to conclusions about whether or not you're 'lying'. Maybe you just have a misunderstanding of my position on this issue and believe that I somehow agree with you, but I think I've made my opinions clear on several occasions to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

So in case I wasn't clear enough the last few times I said this, I'll reiterate my stance: I think wife-beating is degrading, demeaning, and insulting to both men and women. Feel free to disagree with me, but I think my statements here should ensure that it's entirely clear to you from now on that you and I don't share the same views on this issue.

 

[apophenia]

Saying that a 'soft beating' is not abuse is like saying that pointing a gun at someone, but not firing it, is not abuse.

Implicit in a man 'softly beating' his wife ( or anyone ) is the threat of potentially more serious abuse.

It is also a form of humiliation, and a statement of intent to control.

 

[gnostic]

You mean that the interpretation you adopt of the verse makes you support wife-beating; I don't think all Muslims assume the same stances when it comes to religious texts. Some issues aren't that black-&-white as to allow for only one interpretation or stance to be 'right' and the others wrong.

But you still haven't answered my question. If you really don't try to justify abusing women yet still accept wife-beating, is it correct to infer that you don't view wife-beating as a form of abuse?

If you answer the question above in the affirmative, then I think that many people would disagree with you and even find your views offensive and provocative. Who is to say, then, that you shouldn't be banned from expressing them under the same premises you're basing your arguments on?

I don't see the necessity to do so; I believe I have made my stance on this issue quite clear in this thread and others.

Also, I wouldn't really like private messages (emphasis on 'private') being posted in the open forums. I think that would be a breach of privacy as well as confidentiality of PMs between individual members.

I wouldn't try to jump to conclusions about whether or not you're 'lying'. Maybe you just have a misunderstanding of my position on this issue and believe that I somehow agree with you, but I think I've made my opinions clear on several occasions to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

So in case I wasn't clear enough the last few times I said this, I'll reiterate my stance: I think wife-beating is degrading, demeaning, and insulting to both men and women. Feel free to disagree with me, but I think my statements here should ensure that it's entirely clear to you from now on that you and I don't share the same views on this issue.

Well, I hoped that he (godobeyer) get it, but from past experiences with him, I doubt it very much. Great efforts though...and worthy enough for some frubals.

To GodObeyer:

Any private message between you and debate slayer (or anyone else for that matter) SHOULD REMAIN PRIVATE.

So you can't post in public areas, like in this thread for example, especially without consent.

 

[gnostic]

Not everyone is calling for a "ban". King Abdullah of Jordan called for a condemnation for such material and I don't see why not. If it had been similar material published by Hamas against Judaism it would be anti-semitic and would be labeled hate speech and rightly so. So when a conservative group backs such material targeting Islam why is not hate speech but freedom of speech. Yes I agree, it should be protected under the first amendment, but there is a marked difference between one being hate speech against minorities in the former and the latter being some type of heroic or commendable stand against "creeping Shari'ah".

If you think or believe something to be offensive, like this video, then don't watch it. Ignore it.

You have the free will to watch some programmes on TV, no one is forcing to watch anything. If you don't like it, turn the channel or turn the TV off.

It is the same with watching videos on YouTube or similar sites. Don't like it, don't watch it.

There are bound to be some racist or sexist or hate videos out there on the Internet, and if you know it going to be insulting or offensive, then it is best to avoid it altogether.

Trying to ban something on the Internet will only draw more attention to the video. The images on the news of Muslims violently protesting and chanting death threats, burning flags, destroying properties, have done nothing but tarnished the image of Islam. It actually made Muslims look weak and insecure in their faith. It give image that Muslims to be violent lots. Seriously does Islam, Allah or Muhammad NEED defending?

If you don't want Islam or Muslims to look weak then they should just ignore that stupid video instead of giving more attentions to it then it deserve.

Look at me. I am agnostic, and I will argue or criticize with you or anyone else about Islam, Judasism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc, as well as political or social/cultural issues, and I have not bother to watch that video that many Muslims found offensive.

Why should I waste my time on the video which I know to rubbish?

Banning it will not stop the next idiots in making similar videos. I don't think godobeyer understand this.

 

[Bismillah]

I think even hate speech should fall beneath freedom of speech

Within the paragraph you quoted is me agreeing with you. But hate speech should also be recognized and condemned. Not celebrated and cherished because it happens to be hate speech against Muslims. And that is where I agree with King Abdullah.

Trying to ban something on the Internet will only draw more attention to the video.

Did you bother to read what I wrote? Can you point out to me, please, where I want such things to be banned?

 

[gnostic]

Did you bother to read what I wrote? Can you point out to me, please, where I want such things to be banned?

I'm talking about Godobeyer.

He should know that there are bound to be stupid people who hate Islam, and will do something to provoke Muslims. Rather than ban any form of media, he should ignore it, not watch the video.

As other have pointed out the proposed UN law is totally impracticable and unworkable.

 

[Godobeyer]

You mean that the interpretation you adopt of the verse makes you support wife-beating; I don't think all Muslims assume the same stances when it comes to religious texts. Some issues aren't that black-&-white as to allow for only one interpretation or stance to be 'right' and the others wrong.

But you still haven't answered my question. If you really don't try to justify abusing women yet still accept wife-beating, is it correct to infer that you don't view wife-beating as a form of abuse?

If you answer the question above in the affirmative, then I think that many people would disagree with you and even find your views offensive and provocative. Who is to say, then, that you shouldn't be banned from expressing them under the same premises you're basing your arguments on?

I don't see the necessity to do so; I believe I have made my stance on this issue quite clear in this thread and others.


Also, I wouldn't really like private messages (emphasis on 'private') being posted in the open forums. I think that would be a breach of privacy as well as confidentiality of PMs between individual members.

no i believe that everyone had the reponsibility what he/she said in PM or thread , when you told me something in PM and told people here something else , i considerate it double stand .

NOW all the world know and witness, who had the hide opinion (double talk PM different than thread)

i am considerate my self a victime of double talk .

this certificate that i have the courage to show the people here (all the world) what i chat/said with you in PM ,evidencely it's proof that i am not lair , when i said there was double stand in PM vs threads about soft wife-beating islamic law.

I wouldn't try to jump to conclusions about whether or not you're 'lying'. Maybe you just have a misunderstanding of my position on this issue and believe that I somehow agree with you, but I think I've made my opinions clear on several occasions to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

So in case I wasn't clear enough the last few times I said this, I'll reiterate my stance: I think wife-beating is degrading, demeaning, and insulting to both men and women. Feel free to disagree with me, but I think my statements here should ensure that it's entirely clear to you from now on that you and I don't share the same views on this issue.

accualty you don't have any clear position .
and you told me before that you had rebuilt your position twice for this issue .

 

[Godobeyer]

honeslty brothers and sister
i considerate my self a victime of hiding opinion (not clear or not courage )or double talking of some muslims here .

 

[Godobeyer]

I'm talking about Godobeyer.

He should know that there are bound to be stupid people who hate Islam, and will do something to provoke Muslims. Rather than ban any form of media, he should ignore it, not watch the video.

As other have pointed out the proposed UN law is totally impracticable and unworkable.

that's the point

but you don't accept to stop their provocation?