• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shocking Anti-Islam Ad Campaign Coming To New York City Buses And Subways

Well, I don't really know what to tell you man. The problem you're having isn't a lack of information, it is just that you lack moral values. I could have helped you with the former, but not the latter. So, best of luck with that I guess.


"moral values"

I suppose "moral values" trumps the First Amendment?

Well that is without question the progressive mindset er value.
 
"moral values"

I suppose "moral values" trumps the First Amendment?

Well that is without question the progressive mindset er value.

How did we get on the first amendment?

Does this group have the right to place ads? Yes. Is the MTA required to give them a forum? No.
 
"moral values"

I suppose "moral values" trumps the First Amendment?

Well that is without question the progressive mindset er value.

Not really sure what you're talking about. I pointed out that that poster was displaying a lack of moral values, not that the government should silence him or something, so nothing to do with the first amendment.
 
Islam is NOT an ethnic group! It is a belief system, one that is clearly foolish, harmful and dangerous. Why not deal with the facts rather than cliched hyperbole?Demographics? How is that related to the points raised concerning Islam? And what 'cultural progress' are you referring to?

No, that's incorrect. Religious groups are demographic groups. It is indeed kind of an oddity- all the other characteristics that define demographic groups are immutable. But, for whatever reason, everybody has always considered religion to be a demographic group. Presumably because in reality, like 95% of people remain whatever religion they happen to be born into.

The cultural progress I refer to is, obviously, the rejection of bigotry as stupid and immoral that has occurred over the past 150 years or so. You missed that entirely?
 
How did we get on the first amendment?

Does this group have the right to place ads? Yes. Is the MTA required to give them a forum? No.
It seems that they were required to allow space with the precedent being one an Islamic organization used earlier about Israel.
 
No, that's incorrect. Religious groups are demographic groups. It is indeed kind of an oddity- all the other characteristics that define demographic groups are immutable. But, for whatever reason, everybody has always considered religion to be a demographic group. Presumably because in reality, like 95% of people remain whatever religion they happen to be born into.
Okay we will accept that Islam is a demographic group but what point are you trying to make? Everyone fits into a demographic group of some sort, making it all rather vague.

The cultural progress I refer to is, obviously, the rejection of bigotry as stupid and immoral that has occurred over the past 150 years or so. You missed that entirely?
The cultural progress of whom? Please try to make yourself clear as I don't want to misread or misquote your intent. Are we still discussing Muslims and the ad campaign?
 
Okay we will accept that Islam is a demographic group but what point are you trying to make? Everyone fits into a demographic group of some sort, making it all rather vague.

The cultural progress of whom? Please try to make yourself clear as I don't want to misread or misquote your intent. Are we still discussing Muslims and the ad campaign?

The most important change- probably of any kind at all- in the past 150 years has been that our species has generally rejected bigotry. We rejected the idea that some demographic groups are superior to other demographic groups. Somehow, you seem not to be aware of that whole plot, which strikes me as very strange.
 
The most important change- probably of any kind at all- in the past 150 years has been that our species has generally rejected bigotry. We rejected the idea that some demographic groups are superior to other demographic groups. Somehow, you seem not to be aware of that whole plot, which strikes me as very strange.

You seem to have no understanding of history, which makes it difficult to debate your points.

Bigotry has certainly not disappeared over the last 150 years as we have seen with the Communists, Nazis, Fascists, slave owners and, most recently and on the topic, Muslims attacking Christians, Jews and each other.
 
Bigotry has certainly not disappeared over the last 150 years as we have seen with the Communists, Nazis, Fascists, slave owners and, most recently and on the topic, Muslims attacking Christians, Jews and each other.

That's the team you want to be on?
 
Haters are going to keep hating.

It's what they do.

Who is surprised by this?
 
Haters are going to keep hating.

It's what they do.

Who is surprised by this?
Just as people are taught to hate they can be taught to discontinue their ancients hatreds. Many of the racial, ethnic and religious divides have disappeared and yet many still remain. A broader education free of a animosities, suspicions and mistrust would serve everyone better.
 
The goal is not to keep people from hating. The goal is to make them certain that if they act on that hatred in ways that harm other people, they are going to be punished for it, the severity of the punishment increasing with the severity of the harm. If this person had been absolutely certain that within an hour of beheading this poor woman, he would have been seized and beheaded himself, that knowledge would probably have sobered him.
 
The goal is not to keep people from hating. The goal is to make them certain that if they act on that hatred in ways that harm other people, they are going to be punished for it, the severity of the punishment increasing with the severity of the harm. If this person had been absolutely certain that within an hour of beheading this poor woman, he would have been seized and beheaded himself, that knowledge would probably have sobered him.

Really? You think the guy thought he would get away with it?

He got shot, for pete's sake. The guy was obviously crazy.
 
The goal is not to keep people from hating. The goal is to make them certain that if they act on that hatred in ways that harm other people, they are going to be punished for it, the severity of the punishment increasing with the severity of the harm. If this person had been absolutely certain that within an hour of beheading this poor woman, he would have been seized and beheaded himself, that knowledge would probably have sobered him.
Problem is that their hatreds often overwhelm their feelings of self preservation. We saw that with the 72 virgins beliefs, parents sending out their own children to detonate themselves and other innocents and, of course, the suicide bombers. It will take a generation or three for these irrational hatreds to subside. Until it does we can expect more symbolic beheading, attacks on larger groups by individuals, and perhaps a nuclear attack if Iraq and/or Pakistan take crazy up another notch.
 
Really? You think the guy thought he would get away with it?

He got shot, for pete's sake. The guy was obviously crazy.

I never implied he thought he would get away with it. I said that if he had been absolutely certain that within one hour of beheading this woman he himself would have been beheaded, that knowledge probably would have been sobering.

What he knew instead was that there was some chance he might get away; that there was some chance no one there would have a gun, or if they did, could shoot him before he got away; that even if he were captured, he might not be convicted; that even if he were, he might not be sentenced to death; and that even if that did happen, he wouldn't be executed for another fifteen years or so.

The fact this man happened to get shot hardly proves he was crazy. He may very well have figured it was unlikely anyone there had a gun, or that the police would show up with guns before he could get away. There have been many cases where people have committed brutal murders in broad daylight and never been shot. We saw a similar kind of attack in London a month ago, and that murderer was not shot. Neither were the two African Muslims who almost decapitated a British soldier, Lee Rigby.
 
Problem is that their hatreds often overwhelm their feelings of self preservation. We saw that with the 72 virgins beliefs, parents sending out their own children to detonate themselves and other innocents and, of course, the suicide bombers. It will take a generation or three for these irrational hatreds to subside. Until it does we can expect more symbolic beheading, attacks on larger groups by individuals, and perhaps a nuclear attack if Iraq and/or Pakistan take crazy up another notch.


People who are so fanatic they are willing to kill themselves to kill other people can never be deterred. The only way to protect against them is to kill them before they can act. But they are a small minority. No one could have been more fanatic than the Japanese during World War II. Out of the garrison of 20,000-plus men on Iwo Jima, for example, only about one per cent survived to surrender. And suicide was a given in kamikaze attacks. But it's interesting to note that even there, there was only a surge of volunteer kamikaze pilots for a while. In the later stages, it got more and more necessary to dragoon people into that duty.
 
While all racism is bigotry, not all bigotry is racism. Islam is a religion, not a race, therefore anti-Islamic statements, while they are bigoted, are not racist.

Considering less than 15% of Muslims are arab which race would they be attacking?
 
The goal is not to keep people from hating. The goal is to make them certain that if they act on that hatred in ways that harm other people, they are going to be punished for it, the severity of the punishment increasing with the severity of the harm. If this person had been absolutely certain that within an hour of beheading this poor woman, he would have been seized and beheaded himself, that knowledge would probably have sobered him.

Yeah, that don't work. The penalty for theft use to be death. Didn't stop thieves from thieving.
 
Yeah, that don't work. The penalty for theft use to be death. Didn't stop thieves from thieving.

Really? It sure as hell would have stopped that thief from thieving.

How about some specifics? Under what country's laws, and when, was theft a capital crime for which the penalty was usually carried out? British law used to make all sorts of crimes punishable by death, but for all but the most serious crimes, the people convicted were seldom executed.

To return to the topic of this thread, do you think the state of New York has authority to prohibit these ads? In this country, should government be able to ban political speech in public forums whenever it doesn't like what's being said? If what someone says makes members of a group it's politically correct to consider victimized feel all icky, should the government make the mean, insensitive person stop hurting the members of the victim group by saying such yucky things?

I think MTA cooked up a phony "clear and present danger" rationale after it lost the first challenge by the group that wants to place these ads. I don't think anything about the ads even comes close to taking them outside the realm of First Amendment protected speech. Leftists just want to prevent people from telling the truth about the Jew-hating Islamist SOB's whose feet they're always trying to kiss. Not surprising, since many of them make clear by constantly running America down that they don't like it much better than the Islamists do.
 
Last edited:
So do they really know who the executioner is now? I am wondering how she knows he was a moderate before and uses that photo?

'In a move that is certain to further escalate already stretched racial tensions in America's most cosmopolitan city, some 100 New York City buses will soon carry jarring anti-Islamic posters which feature photos of an ISIS beheading victim, his alleged executioner, Adolf Hitler, declare "Yesterday's moderate [Muslim] is today's headline" and proclaim "It's not Islamophobia, it's Islamorealism" as part of an "educational campaign." According to the NY Daily News, the ads, paid for by flame-throwing blogger Pamela Geller, at a cost of $100,000, are intended as an “education campaign” to warn of the “problem with jihad” and Islamic sharia law, Geller said.'

arab%20ads%20NYC.jpg


http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/09/arab ads NYC.jpg

My reaction?

picard-facepalm2.jpg
 
How is this going to cause an increase in racial tensions? Islam isn't a race.

I agree this will never fly, unfortunately.

It's bigotry all the same. And most Muslims are Middle Eastern, so it's another aspect of racial bigotry on top of religious bigotry.
 
While all racism is bigotry, not all bigotry is racism. Islam is a religion, not a race, therefore anti-Islamic statements, while they are bigoted, are not racist.

And I am tired of explaining the racism people of Arab, Persian, Turkish, and Pashtun backgrounds face because they are foreign and/or Muslim. 'Brown people" experience racism in American because of differences in culture, immigration status, and religion. I have many Muslim friends of all those ethnicities, and I have seen people at restaurants, hospitals, airports, and call centers treat them like **** for some reason be it they are foreign, they are brown, they are probably Muslims, etc.
 
It's bigotry all the same. And most Muslims are Middle Eastern, so it's another aspect of racial bigotry on top of religious bigotry.

It has nothing to do with race.

Libbos are the last folks to criticize religious bigotry.
 
Back
Top Bottom