Majority of Danes want to ban burqa: survey

[Mehrunes]

Murder is just a cherrypicked definition to make abortion seem less dire. It's still killing human life.

I guess my earlier point about death penalty went over your head. And you're the one trying to shove murder into it. You're the one cherry-picking here. Because "killing human life" seems plenty dire all on its own already to me.

I like how you're so upset by my words that you continually try to insult me even though I made it clear I couldn't care less about your opinion.

I'm not insulting you, I'm insulting your arguments, because your arguments are fucking terrible. Are you your arguments now? And don't project your nonsense on me. If anything, I'm amused by how infinitely godawful in their arrogance your arguments are. It's just I also consider them worthy of mockery due to that fact.

Basically the fact that you're willing to accept abortion as just removing a clump of cells makes you so low on my scale of human decency that I really couldn't care less.

I didn't even use the word "cell" in this thread, let alone make my personal judgement on the topic of abortion. I only argued you're not the be all, end all of morality. Gods claim to be ones. Are you god now? Are you incapable of discerning between pointing the above fact out and disagreeing with you? Or are you so lost in your pile of horseshit that it covers even the memory parts of your brain so that you can't remember which person you talked to said what? Wait, it must cover your eyes as well, given how the respond function lets you see what you're fucking responding to. So, fuck off with your abject lies, fuck off even harder with your superiority complex and non-existent high ground that's so flimsy that you need to support with your abject lies.

Riiight and all those priests thrown into it was just coincidence, right?

Talk about obtuse

inb4: " The priests were political enemies

Given the much, much larger amount of not-priests thrown into gulags, I dunno, you tell me. It's almost as if the communist revolution aimed to overthrow the previous ruling class first and foremost, with the orthodox church being deeply ingrained in the ruling system of Russian Empire.

REEEE PICKLE RICK "

I mean, your arguments were pathetic before. Are you trying to discover what's below pathetic right now?

[Quibble]

Like I said, it's a culture that wishes to restrict freedom of expression. I have been saying that all along.

Like I said..

This is about covering your face in public.. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Religions should never be set above the safety of other people.

Covering of ones face is something a lot of criminals do..
We want to make it illegal to cover you face in public, if you do not have a valid reason (such as cold weather).

I am not saying that muslim women are all criminals.. I can not say if criminals would start wearing burqa's to hide their face, if it was exempt from the law.

But that doesn't matter. Religion SHOULD NOT be a way to disregard laws.

Religions are outdated fairytales, that we no longer need in the civilized world. We know better today, we don't need to explain what we don't understand with magic and invisible sky people.

[Pengekaer]

But if you want to force your beliefs onto others, you are one of those cultures who is very authoritarian and does not allow freedom for their subjects. That's the problem with laws such as this, people become the thing they claim they are trying to stop.

Oh boy. Well, with open borders, how are you going to prevent authoritarian cultures from migrating in and taking over? Cultures that upset, harm or leech of the majority culture? There is nothing authoritarian in believing people living on a plot of land should have a democratic say in immigration matters, which isn't the case in Europe atm. What if I don't want 10000 new neighbours from a far away land and very few, if any, of my fellow residents do? In such a case, open borders is in defiance of the people and just plain numb idealism.

In Europe, the welfare states were only half the problem, the other half was lack of any border authority during 2015-2016. The results speak for themselves.

A country always need Authorities to function (anything else is plain anarchy) and that includes border authorities, which Europe now learns again the hard way. There's a long, long way from recognizing the need for some authorities to supporting authoritarian regimes.

[Machismo]

Like I said..

This is about covering your face in public.. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Religions should never be set above the safety of other people.

Covering of ones face is something a lot of criminals do..
We want to make it illegal to cover you face in public, if you do not have a valid reason (such as cold weather).

I am not saying that muslim women are all criminals.. I can not say if criminals would start wearing burqa's to hide their face, if it was exempt from the law.

But that doesn't matter. Religion SHOULD NOT be a way to disregard laws.

Religions are outdated fairytales, that we no longer need in the civilized world. We know better today, we don't need to explain what we don't understand with magic and invisible sky people.

As you can see from the comments, it's not just about covering your face in public. People are specifically citing Islamic culture as a justification for the ban.

Even then, the desire to ban all face coverings is still a restriction of the freedom of expression.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh boy. Well, with open borders, how are you going to prevent authoritarian cultures from migrating in and taking over? Cultures that upset, harm or leech of the majority culture? There is nothing authoritarian in believing people living on a plot of land should have a democratic say in immigration matters, which isn't the case in Europe atm. What if I don't want 10000 new neighbours from a far away land and very few, if any, of my fellow residents do? In such a case, open borders is in defiance of the people and just plain numb idealism.

A country always need Authorities to function (anything else is plain anarchy) and that includes border authorities, which Europe now learns again the hard way. There's a long, long way from recognizing the need for some authorities to supporting authoritarian regimes.

That's simple, when someone tries to be authoritarian, you stop him. It doesn't matter where he's from, where he was born, or what religion he chooses to follow. Local authoritarians are no different than foreign ones.

Democracy can easily be authoritarian in nature. In fact, it is often one of the quickest paths to oppression. All it takes is for a simple majority to vote away the freedoms of others.

All government is authority, that's the entire point of its existence. I simply want far less of that authority than most. I do not wish to ever restrict an action that does not cause harm.

[pateuvasiliu]

I mean, your arguments were pathetic before. Are you trying to discover what's below pathetic right now?

Merely mocking the group of people you belong to.


Yeah, that's what we get with no religion, a world full of people that excuse evil with " Muh morals are subjective " and whatever other bullshit excuses you need to tell yourself to sleep well at night.


Proving my point for 2-3 pages now.

[Machismo]

Merely mocking the group of people you belong to.


Yeah, that's what we get with no religion, a world full of people that excuse evil with " Muh morals are subjective " and whatever other bullshit excuses you need to tell yourself to sleep well at night.


Proving my point for 2-3 pages now.

Most morals are subjective, it's not really a difficult thing to understand. Most morals also existed long before religion came to exist. When it comes to human behavior, it's basic game theory, and is a fundamental part of the success of a species.

Your morals are certainly not mine. Honestly, that's fine. So long as you don't try to harm others, or force your morals onto them, then you can have whatever morals you like.

[pateuvasiliu]

Most morals are subjective

Which is why religion is needed. Because so many would take the easy way out otherwise.

[Pengekaer]

All government is authority, that's the entire point of its existence. I simply want far less of that authority than most. I do not wish to ever restrict an action that does not cause harm.

I guess we agree on that. It's just that I think open borders do cause harm. And lots of it.

[Machismo]

Which is why religion is needed. Because so many would take the easy way out otherwise.

Which religion is needed? Do you have a specific one in mind?

It's not needed, it's a coping mechanism, and it's a means to control other people. How many wars have been fought over religion? How many people have tried to use religion to justify atrocities?

It's not needed, it's wanted.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess we agree on that. It's just that I think open borders do cause harm. And lots of it.

So does forcing your culture onto others.

[Quibble]

Even then, the desire to ban all face coverings is still a restriction of the freedom of expression.

Is our laws against carrying weapons also a restriction of freedom of expression?

Wanting the ability to identify people in public space. Is a safety concern.

Allowing people with religions to be exempt from specific laws, is a problem.
People are able to create new religions and have them legally accepted as religions. These religions can make up whatever rules they want.

And that is a problem if you start allowing religions to be exempt from laws.

[Machismo]

Is our laws against carrying weapons also a restriction of freedom of expression?

Wanting the ability to identify people in public space... Is a safety concern.

Allowing people with religions to be exempt from specific laws, is a problem.
People are able to create new religions and have them legally accepted as religions. These religions can make up whatever rules they want.

And that is a problem if you start allowing religions to be exempt from laws.

Well, that would be a restriction of the freedom to bear arms.

Here's the thing, I don't support any law that requires people to uncover their faces in public. This just happens to be focused on Burqas, and it's clear exactly why most people want to focus on them. If people want to walk around in ninja masks, be my guest.

[Mehrunes]

Merely mocking the group of people you belong to.

Given how I haven't seen any Rick and Morty episode or how various group of people watch Rick and Morty, not just, well, whatever the group you lumped me with in your brilliant, brilliant mind even is, good job making an even bigger fool out of yourself than you already did, I guess?

Yeah, that's what we get with no religion, a world full of people that excuse evil with " Muh morals are subjective " and whatever other bullshit excuses you need to tell yourself to sleep well at night.


Proving my point for 2-3 pages now.

First of all, morals are subjective and you acting like a child about it doesn't alter reality. If you think there were no moral shifts in all of the centuries when religion held more sway over the population, you'd be even more ridiculous than you are now. And given how you still cover your ears and scream "lalala, I'm right and I can't hear you from my high ground I built on lies and a whole boatload of my complexes" you haven't proven shit. The part about the specific issue of abortion being one of a conflict of rights, which you haven't even addressed once like argumentatively bankrupt coward, still flies light years above your head and is the cherry on top of humongous pile of evidence of you simply being incapable of proving anything since your debate skills are below that of a toddler stomping its foot.

Also, it's really fucking weird how you made a big deal of how non-religious you are after I... did not accuse you of being one, yet you tout yourself as the god emperor of morality. And since it's unlikely that you're immortal, you were born in the same less religious times as everyone else here. So good job throwing a wrench in your amazing narrative of what a world without religion entails. Unless you're to tell me that you're not only the god emperor of morality, but also a unique special snowflake immune to the "moral decay" of a world with no religion?

[Pengekaer]

- - - Updated - - -



So does forcing your culture onto others.

When have I ever encouraged that? Specific paragraph, please.

[Machismo]

When have I ever encouraged that? Specific paragraph, please.

By trying to force out other cultures, and oppose multiculturalism, how is that not forcing your culture onto others? The restriction of immigration is a way of forcing your version of culture onto others. You said:

"Except there can be a huge loss of identity due to multiculturalism as a result, which I oppose. I am a national social-conservative rather than libertarian."

How do you expect to prevent that "loss of culture?"

[Pengekaer]

By trying to force out other cultures, and oppose multiculturalism, how is that not forcing your culture onto others? The restriction of immigration is a way of forcing your version of culture onto others. You said:

Not forcing shit. Just asking them to have their authoritarian culture elsewhere. Open borders evidently force me to live with it.

Multiculturalism is something I said I oppose, not something I ever proposed any legislatition against, bar border defenses which no state can exist without. Just that I think DK is primarily a teritory for danes, but not exclusively so (which does leave room for others of compatible cultures, in numbers I think it is up to the danish voters to determine). As for the multiculturalism we have now, I never proposed any legislation to "deal with that" because I within this confined space, people should be free to do as they please - but not everybody should be free to slander in as in as they please. We need to stop that trend of everybody just being able to slander in, or we are doomed, plain and simple. The multiculturalism we have now, I realize that we are helpless against.
You see, open borders is also a form of authoritanism as I see it. It forces people in space X to accept numbers of incoming people, Y, giving them no say in it. Every system forces someone to accept something. What is freedom of migration to some is the duty of recieving to others.
QED.
EDIT: Maybe the obligation to recieve anyone who wants to cross the border of my country does harm me. I think it does. Period. Seeyou later.

[Machismo]

Not forcing shit. Just asking them to have their authoritarian culture elsewhere. Open borders evidently force me to live with it.

That is forcing "shit." It also doesn't show how you would deal with the very same culture were to already exist within your country. Would you simply allow the authoritarian culture to exist within your borders, since it is probably already there to some extent?

The issue with the majority deciding something, is that there are already numerous cultures within Denmark, and every other country on the planet. The most homogenized cultures tend to also be the most authoritarian.

Receiving anyone into your borders does not cause you harm. Nationalism is a distinctly authoritarian stance, making it no different than the authoritarian cultures you wish to keep out.

[Pengekaer]

The most homogenized cultures tend to also be the most authoritarian.

Grabbed out of thin air.

he issue with the majority deciding something, is that there are already numerous cultures within Denmark

As I said, I realize the damage has already been done in this regard. I don't have any solution in this regard that would not be grossly fascist, so I think we must just accept it. To keep the borders open and invite more of that shit in though.. madness.
Best we can hope for now is to cut the welfare so much that most of the leechers will leave on their own (Which they will when the honey stops flowing). And then, we're gonna have borders again. That is my dream.
If that is your idea of authorinarism, then I am without question adressing a true anarchist.

[Machismo]

Grabbed out of thin air.



As I said, I realize the damage has already been done in this regard. I don't have any solution in this regard that would not be grossly fascist, so I think we must just accept it. To keep the borders open and invite more of that shit in though.. madness.
Best we can hope for now is to cut the welfare so much that most of the leechers will leave on their own (Which they will when the honey stops flowing). And then, we're gonna have borders again. That is my dream.
If that is your idea of authorinarism, then I am without question adressing a true anarchist.

What exactly are you afraid of entering into your country?

You already live in a country with many different cultures, so differing cultures is not the real issue. I fully agree with cutting welfare, I wish my country did the same. But, when it comes to nationalism, it's the same type of authoritarian mentality as welfare. I'm sure there are people in your country who would welcome those from outside. Is your culture more important than theirs?

As for homogenization of cultures, look at the Middle East. Look at North Korea, China, even large parts of South America.

I'm not going to push to keep out someone, just because I don't like the dominant culture where they come from. I'm not going to use the government to make sure my culture stays on top. I'm not going to use the government to make sure my side wins.

[Quibble]

Here's the thing, I don't support any law that requires people to uncover their faces in public. This just happens to be focused on Burqas, and it's clear exactly why most people want to focus on them. If people want to walk around in ninja masks, be my guest.

I can not understand how you can have this viewpoint.

Making it illegal to cover your face in public, has nothing to do with freedom of expression. It has all to do with safety.
Wearing a ski mask to cover your identity is not freedom of expression.

We are not banning halloween, or costume parties.

But it should not be legal for criminals to cover their identity in public.

[Machismo]

I can not understand how you can have this viewpoint.

Making it illegal to cover your face in public, has nothing to do with freedom of expression. It has all to do with safety.
Wearing a ski mask to cover your identity is not freedom of expression.

We are not banning halloween, or costume parties.

But it should not be legal for criminals to cover their identity in public.

Once again, it doesn't matter what the supposed intent is, it matters what the restriction is. And yes, that is a clear restriction of the freedom of expression.

It's not just about criminals covering their faces, it's about banning everyone from covering their faces.