Why Monarchy is better than Democracy in many ways

[fschmidt]

That's an unspecific reply. It would help if you highlighted where I went wrong rather than just making the unsubstantiated claim that i made some huge error in failing to understand you. Someone asks you one question, and you can't continue responding?

You say X. Then I explain why not X. Then instead of responding to my argument, you simply say X again. Where does this lead? Nowhere.

If you can identify X and correct your mistake, then we can continue this discussion.

[Moretorque]

ARON

This is where I think some people may have it wrong, nature has been at work here long before man. Nature decides what works and it says human is if you can replicate doing the nasty.

Corny may feel blacks should not breed with whites but as far as nature sees it the two species are just different and are of the same plain.

If their was truly a problem it would not take place by the laws of nature, now the head Jews want to mix the Europeans with the Blacks because they want a genetic advantage in IQ and so forth but what does it mean long term ?

The more intelligent races are the ones who triggered the current mass extinction so by natures standard brains are proving to be overrated.

[Aron]

@fschmidt

Again,you are making this far more difficult than it has to be. You could just point out X rather than needlessly delaying the conversation. But I will just do it since you aren't going to at this rate.

Quote 1.

No. You should be free to express these opinions. When did I ever say otherwise?

Quote 2.

People should be free to express any opinion and to believe whatever they want. It is actions that concern me. Modern culture is highly dysgenic and is causing serious genetic damage to humanity, so it must be wiped out. I support violence when it is needed to defend myself and my descendants.

Quote 1 from me, you probably see part 2 of sentence 1 in this as in contradiction with your first quote.

OK define your view of genetic damage in more detail, and why you or other Muslims should be violent and kill Westerners for speaking out against Islam. Also speaking out against islam=/ genetic damage. Are you a Genetic Determinist? Yes i realize that someone doesn't have to be a genetic determinist to believe in genetic damage but i think it's worth asking here.

But I can't tell what exactly you believe here, as you said to Cornfed in another Islam thread that most westerners/members of his culture deserve to be slaughtered. This is what's making me ask for specifics on what you believe about Genetics, and what you believe is genetically damaging, etc. I can't know what you consider dysgenic unless you're going to tell me, i don't want to just guess. If you'd tell me and just say what types of violence you support for what reasons that would answer all the questions i asked for the most part.

[fschmidt]

Again,you are making this far more difficult than it has to be. You could just point out X rather than needlessly delaying the conversation.

I am trying to determine whether it is worth my time to have this conversation at all. Members of modern culture inevitably get everything wrong, but because they are both stupid and dishonest, it is difficult for me to tell whether they get things wrong because of stupidity or because they are intentionally lying. This question applies here.

why you or other Muslims should be violent and kill Westerners for speaking out against Islam.

This is X. I have repeatedly said that I support free speech, so why do you insist on repeating this? Are you being stupid or dishonest?

[fastmover123]

Ok,you talked me into it I will be king

[Aron]

@fschmidt

This is X. I have repeatedly said that I support free speech, so why do you insist on repeating this? Are you being stupid or dishonest?

I realize you said that. No I'm not being stupid or dishonest.Here is what you have said in the thread 'The Truth Behind Islam' in 2017:

I would not call this man, no idea who he is, to be an extremist - he is openly speaking out in a very direct way what Islam means for him without talking around the subject without excuses, and if I look around in this world, he talks about what Islam means for many other followers like him.

Because modern Western culture is composed of intolerant morons, there is very little diversity of opinion there. There is much more diversity of opinion in Islam.

he also says that all Muslims have the right to kill any infidel if they feel he insulted Islam, and to kill any infidel even if he is living in a non-Islamic country as the sharia overrides any other law for any Muslim worldwide.

I completely agree with him on this. Modern culture hates the free expression of ideas, and does everything it can to shut down opposing ideas. But modern culture loves insults. It should be the opposite, as it is in Islam. So I love it when Muslim terrorists kill modern scum who insult their religion.

I'm not lying, these are all things you have said. And it's consistent with what you said here too.

I do believe that all members of modern culture should be slaughtered. How does this view conflict with free speech? I see no connection.

Free speech means freedom to express opinions. It does not mean the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, or to lie in court, or to defame someone. Blasphamy is nothing more than defamation of religion and was illegal (at the state level) for much of American history. People should be free to express opinions, not harmful insults.

Insulting a religion is not harm, it is not at all like saying Fire in a theater. If you want to say you are still fully pro free speech then it's not a pro free speech position by my interpretation if it does not allow this. You can still think it is, but that doesn't change that my view on what constitutes free speech is then going to be much different from yours.

Once again, it would be helpful if you would explain your beliefs about genetics so I can know what you think constitutes genetic harm.

[Moretorque]

He says you are not worth his time too respond but then he spends more effort dancing around your ?'s rather than just straight forward giving you an answer that is easy to understand.

He is just playing games with you.

[fschmidt]

Insulting a religion is not harm, it is not at all like saying Fire in a theater. If you want to say you are still fully pro free speech then it's not a pro free speech position by my interpretation if it does not allow this. You can still think it is, but that doesn't change that my view on what constitutes free speech is then going to be much different from yours.

Once again, it would be helpful if you would explain your beliefs about genetics so I can know what you think constitutes genetic harm.

This is an improvement, at least you presented an argument which you should have done some time ago. Let's settle one topic at a time, free speech first then genetics.

But first, consider your statement:

why you or other Muslims should be violent and kill Westerners for speaking out against Islam.

You must now admit that this statement is wrong. The issue isn't speaking out against Islam but rather insulting Islam.

Returning to free speech. I assume that you agree that defamation is not protected by free speech. Now consider the definition of defamation by Nolo:

A statement is defamatory if it tends to hold the plaintiff (the subject of the statement, who is bringing the lawsuit) up to scorn, hatred, ridicule, disgrace, or contempt, in the mind of any considerable and respectable segment of the community.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... claim.html

As I explained, blasphemy is basically defamation of religion. Ridiculing a religion does harm it because the masses are stupid and when they see that a religion is ridiculed, they are less likely to respect the religion. This can be seen in the loss of respect for Christianity, which refuses to defend itself, and the increase in respect for Islam, which is willing to use violence to defend itself. Note that my understanding of blasphemy was the general understanding in America up to about the 1930s and that many states had blasphemy laws.

[Aron]

@fschmidt

This is an improvement, at least you presented an argument which you should have done some time ago.

Remember me saying the same thing just a few posts back? Insulting someone's religion isn't causing harm. If someone chooses not to believe your religion because it got insulted then that's their choice. Other people will hear the insult, critically examine Islam, then decide the insults are justified after learning of its violent tenets like the death penalty for apostasy.

Saying you do not like Islam or any religion is not like yelling fire, it is not killing or hurting anyone. It often isn't a lie either. Should I be slaughtered because I don't like Islam and i'm willing to say so? Or because I don't like it when religions directly support violence, like circumcision in Judaism, or jihad in Islam? Both of those are aggression so how are they not wrong? I can disagree with any tenet of any religion without it being violence. If i say all Christians/Muslims/Hindus/Jews/buddhists or someone else must die for believing something, that's different.

Let's settle one topic at a time, free speech first then genetics.

This just leads to slower conversation speed but if you really feel like it i guess you can choose to not talk about multiple things in one post.

You must now admit that this statement is wrong. The issue isn't speaking out against Islam but rather insulting Islam.

If you want to talk about it in a totally technical sense, yes you are not against ALL forms of speaking out against islam, specifically your personal view of what an insult is. But that was never my intention, my syntax did not perfectly convey my intent but ultimately no, i did not mean to say you are against literally all forms of speaking out against Islam. Again this doesn't matter though as it is already wrong to say insults are not valid forms of speaking out against Islam or any other religion. Insulting a religion isn't invalid and works as a form of speaking out against the religion, or whatever other belief. If the religion is really bad enough sometimes it deserves an insult.

I assume that you agree that defamation is not protected by free speech. Now consider the definition of defamation by Nolo

Going to have to disagree, the definition of defamation I go by is this one:"the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel:"
So, defamation usually has a context of lying, but insults are often not lies, just honest expressions of opinion in an emotionally charged way. I don't really care if people make insults if those insults are just based on their honest opinion.

As I explained, blasphemy is basically defamation of religion. Ridiculing a religion does harm it because the masses are stupid and when they see that a religion is ridiculed, they are less likely to respect the religion. This can be seen in the loss of respect for Christianity, which refuses to defend itself, and the increase in respect for Islam, which is willing to use violence to defend itself. Note that my understanding of blasphemy was the general understanding in America up to about the 1930s and that many states had blasphemy laws.

Christianity was more dominant back then although it wasn't supposed to be due to the laws on the separation of Church and State. A religion is not a person or an individual and does not have individual rights, if people choose to disbelieve anything based on an insult then it's on them for making their own judgement based on this. Plenty of people instead are just losing respect for both Christianity and Islam as it becomes more apparent to the public how they are both based on Authoritarian indoctrination as the masses are supposed to obey some religious God or be punished. Islam is just disliked even more than Christianity because it's more blatantly authoritarian and has more violent tenets being enforced, like the death penalty for Apostasy, or killing of those who insult Islam. Which is against free speech.

[fschmidt]

This is an improvement, at least you presented an argument which you should have done some time ago.

Remember me saying the same thing just a few posts back?

No

Insulting someone's religion isn't causing harm. If someone chooses not to believe your religion because it got insulted then that's their choice. Other people will hear the insult, critically examine Islam, then decide the insults are justified after learning of its violent tenets like the death penalty for apostasy.

Ridiculing a religion does harm it because the masses are stupid and when they see that a religion is ridiculed, they are less likely to respect the religion. This can be seen in the loss of respect for Christianity, which refuses to defend itself, and the increase in respect for Islam, which is willing to use violence to defend itself.

Instead of repeating yourself, please respond to my arguments.

If you want to talk about it in a totally technical sense, yes you are not against ALL forms of speaking out against islam, specifically your personal view of what an insult is. But that was never my intention, my syntax did not perfectly convey my intent but ultimately no, i did not mean to say you are against literally all forms of speaking out against Islam. Again this doesn't matter though as it is already wrong to say insults are not valid forms of speaking out against Islam or any other religion. Insulting a religion isn't invalid and works as a form of speaking out against the religion, or whatever other belief. If the religion is really bad enough sometimes it deserves an insult.

That is some progress. So would you agree that I am not against free speech, rather that we disagree on what constitutes defamation?

Going to have to disagree, the definition of defamation I go by is this one:"the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel:"
So, defamation usually has a context of lying, but insults are often not lies, just honest expressions of opinion in an emotionally charged way. I don't really care if people make insults if those insults are just based on their honest opinion.

Technically you are correct that under current American law defamation must include a false statement. Whether this is a good requirement is questionable as I will discuss below.

Christianity was more dominant back then although it wasn't supposed to be due to the laws on the separation of Church and State.

Back then there was a free market in religion and Christianity dominated that market, so no conflict with separation of Church and State. Furthermore blasphemy laws weren't limited to Christianity.

A religion is not a person or an individual and does not have individual rights,

Businesses are not individuals but are also protected from defamation, so this argument fails.

if people choose to disbelieve anything based on an insult then it's on them for making their own judgement based on this.

Let's consider a few examples. Should people be allowed to deny the holocaust? Should people be allowed to say that blacks are genetically inferior? In my view, these are simply opinions so they should be protected by free speech. But what about cartoons that dehumanize some group (jews, blacks, whatever)? In the past I used to believe that this should be allowed. But I changed my mind when I realized what morons the masses truly are. The moronic masses are completely incapable of judgement. While reasoned debate is of interest to the intelligent minority, this just bores the moronic masses. The moronic masses are only swayed by emotional content. Therefore this should be limited. The moronic masses should focus on donuts and beer, and maybe occasionally God. The intelligent minority should be free to discuss any opinions, protected by free speech.

What has happened in modern culture is that civil dialog has been replaced with stupid insults that rouse the moronic masses. These roused masses now feel insulted by the insults from the other side and so they have turned against free speech itself. The moronic masses cannot distinguish between insults and opinions, so now free speech is dying. The only way to preserve free speech is either to limit it to content that doesn't overly offend the moronic masses, or to somehow raise human intelligence.

[Aron]

@fschmidt

This is an improvement, at least you presented an argument which you should have done some time ago.

Remember me saying the same thing just a few posts back?

No

It's the same argument that Religions=/ individuals and it's OK to insult them. It's also OK to insult individuals as that is not harm, other than them maybe getting upset at it, but that's their choice.

Insulting someone's religion isn't causing harm. If someone chooses not to believe your religion because it got insulted then that's their choice. Other people will hear the insult, critically examine Islam, then decide the insults are justified after learning of its violent tenets like the death penalty for apostasy.

Ridiculing a religion does harm it because the masses are stupid and when they see that a religion is ridiculed, they are less likely to respect the religion. This can be seen in the loss of respect for Christianity, which refuses to defend itself, and the increase in respect for Islam, which is willing to use violence to defend itself.

Instead of repeating yourself, please respond to my arguments.

Now you say i'm repeating yourself when earlier you said you didn't hear the argument before. So what if the masses stupidly don't educate themselves? That's their problem. Although it's also a systemic problem caused by the flaws in the capitalist society. But please do respond to my arguments like the death penalty for apostasy and killing of those who insult islam.

If you want to talk about it in a totally technical sense, yes you are not against ALL forms of speaking out against islam, specifically your personal view of what an insult is. But that was never my intention, my syntax did not perfectly convey my intent but ultimately no, i did not mean to say you are against literally all forms of speaking out against Islam. Again this doesn't matter though as it is already wrong to say insults are not valid forms of speaking out against Islam or any other religion. Insulting a religion isn't invalid and works as a form of speaking out against the religion, or whatever other belief. If the religion is really bad enough sometimes it deserves an insult.

That is some progress. So would you agree that I am not against free speech, rather that we disagree on what constitutes defamation?

Even if you're not against all free speech, most people aren't, except for the biggest extremists. If you are still against free speech that isn't based on defaming someone with lies, then you're still against free speech enough to approve of murder of those who insult a religion. Lies in defamations are not considered free speech because free speech is supposed to be a system of dialogue based on truth, even if peole's individual ideas of what is true conflict it is not a problem until you start using lies to ruin someone's reputation accusing them of doing things they didn't do. Lying about yourself is still protected speech thoughsince it's not seen as something intended to damage others.

Going to have to disagree, the definition of defamation I go by is this one:"the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel:"
So, defamation usually has a context of lying, but insults are often not lies, just honest expressions of opinion in an emotionally charged way. I don't really care if people make insults if those insults are just based on their honest opinion.

Technically you are correct that under current American law defamation must include a false statement. Whether this is a good requirement is questionable as I will discuss below.

Christianity was more dominant back then although it wasn't supposed to be due to the laws on the separation of Church and State.

Back then there was a free market in religion and Christianity dominated that market, so no conflict with separation of Church and State. Furthermore blasphemy laws weren't limited to Christianity.

That was not relevant though as Christianity was the main religion that got this protection in America. I doubt the people making those laws cared about it protecting the other small religions at the time, they just used that allowance to get the law passed so they could suppress anti Christian opinions. In God We Trust did not used to be on the dollar bill for example but due to Christians it got added in when that is against the intent of church and state separation laws.

A religion is not a person or an individual and does not have individual rights,

Businesses are not individuals but are also protected from defamation, so this argument fails.

You may not realize it but you're making a status quo argument with the hidden assumption that modern capitalist society is good enough to justify an appeal to authority. I don't agree as I have explained in much detail in the 'Is Capitalism the Problem?" thread. But even within the context of your appeal to authority, you're forgetting that the modern definition of defamation still applies in how businesses are protected, not yours.

if people choose to disbelieve anything based on an insult then it's on them for making their own judgement based on this.

Let's consider a few examples. Should people be allowed to deny the holocaust? Should people be allowed to say that blacks are genetically inferior? In my view, these are simply opinions so they should be protected by free speech. But what about cartoons that dehumanize some group (jews, blacks, whatever)? In the past I used to believe that this should be allowed. But I changed my mind when I realized what morons the masses truly are. The moronic masses are completely incapable of judgement. While reasoned debate is of interest to the intelligent minority, this just bores the moronic masses. The moronic masses are only swayed by emotional content. Therefore this should be limited. The moronic masses should focus on donuts and beer, and maybe occasionally God. The intelligent minority should be free to discuss any opinions, protected by free speech.

What has happened in modern culture is that civil dialog has been replaced with stupid insults that rouse the moronic masses. These roused masses now feel insulted by the insults from the other side and so they have turned against free speech itself. The moronic masses cannot distinguish between insults and opinions, so now free speech is dying. The only way to preserve free speech is either to limit it to content that doesn't overly offend the moronic masses, or to somehow raise human intelligence.

Personally i'm all in favor of free speech even when some people have stupid opinions they want to broadcast. Is this reference to cartoons ultimately linked to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons and other similar anti Islam cartoons? I'm completely in favor of those, Muslims oppose them for depicting their religious figure who their religion says can't be depicted, in other words they just want to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. You're making a utilitarian argument now that nobody can make insults because the masses are stupid and since in democracy they make the biggest impact in votes their ability to make decisions you view as stupid has to be restrained. You're still limited to the frame of reference of democracy itself, which is ultimately a system easily dominated by capitalists who pre-select which people will get to be candidates by providing the funding. I'm still in favor of the spirit of democracy in that it wants people to have input into their society but i think the best way is a bottom up Open Source anarchist type of society where technology is applied to make individuals and individual towns/cities as independent and self sufficient as reasonably possible, increasing as science improves allowing more things to be done locally.

The stupidity of the masses is something heavily influenced by the system of government they live in. They could be a lot smarter if the society were different and actually encouraged knowledge. But because of capitalism, it's profitable to dumb down the public so they cyclically buy more random products every so often to keep profit cycles going and maintain cyclical consumption no matter the environmental and social cost. If they were educated to be smart then they would not waste their money and grow fat and stupid, but that would make capitalism collapse.If they all became fit, educated themselves, and stayed healthy, where would all the diseased and sick patients come from for the medical system to maintain its revenues? Where would McDonalds get people to buy its products if they started getting smart about nutrition and maybe even growing some of their own food? Healthy behavior is inevitably bad for capitalism.

[fschmidt]

Even if you're not against all free speech, most people aren't, except for the biggest extremists.

That's hilarious. Almost everyone hates free speech these days. Look at the laws against holocaust denial which are present in most of the West. Look at the censorship in social media. And look at the extreme censorship found in every single forum that is moderated by members of modern culture.

You raised your dislike for capitalism. I like capitalism, but this is a tangent we should avoid. So let's say that there is some theoretical form of government where extreme free speech would work. So what? The theoretical doesn't interest me. I want to know what works today in the real world. So let's discuss real world censorship, not theories.

Freedom of speech applies in practice to speech in public places because private speech can hardly be regulated anyhow. Public platforms were initially newspapers and then radio and television. American television was regulated to enforce civility and a wide range of opinions were expressed on television. But television has been replaced by the internet, and particularly by social media platforms. These are extremely biased and so there is no freedom of speech for expressing ideas in the primary public platform of our times. Even on private forums, it is almost impossible to find one that allows free speech. This forum is a very unusual exception. I am banned from all forums of modern culture, both of the Left and the Right. There is literally no way to engage in dialog with members of modern culture, which is another one of the many reasons why I favor their extermination.

I should also mention the Charlie Hebdo attack since that is also a practical issue. From my perspective, all decent cultures, including Islam and other sane religions, are at war with modern culture. The question of the rights of free speech for one's enemy in war isn't terribly relevant. The real question regarding any attack on the enemy is whether it was successful in weakening in the enemy. And in this regard, the Charlie Hebdo attack was a resounding success since the spineless scum of modern culture are easily intimidated by violence. Since this attack, insults of Islam have greatly decreased and Islam is growing rapidly in the degenerate West which should hopefully soon lead to the demise of the West.

My practical commitment to free speech should be obvious by my moderation of this forum and other forums that I moderate. I also spend a lot of time promoting free speech within Islam, which I believe is the only place where free speech has a real chance to make a comeback. Now if you will acknowledge that in practice I support free speech far more than the general population, then we can move on to the topic of genetics.

[Aron]

@fschmidt

Even if you're not against all free speech, most people aren't, except for the biggest extremists.

That's hilarious. Almost everyone hates free speech these days. Look at the laws against holocaust denial which are present in most of the West. Look at the censorship in social media. And look at the extreme censorship found in every single forum that is moderated by members of modern culture.

The point isn't that some people have laws against some kinds of free speech. But most people do not support some kind of Theocracy where you're not allowed to say anything but a state religion, or a totalitarian state where you must support the official government positions always, or etc. And just because you're probably not in favor of a Theocracy like that doesn't mean you aren't against free speech enough for me to have a problem with your views. Yes some European countries have much less free speech than America. But ultimately you still want Muslims to kill people for insulting Islam which i think is pretty crazy.

You raised your dislike for capitalism. I like capitalism, but this is a tangent we should avoid. So let's say that there is some theoretical form of government where extreme free speech would work. So what? The theoretical doesn't interest me. I want to know what works today in the real world. So let's discuss real world censorship, not theories.

Freedom of speech applies in practice to speech in public places because private speech can hardly be regulated anyhow. Public platforms were initially newspapers and then radio and television. American television was regulated to enforce civility and a wide range of opinions were expressed on television. But television has been replaced by the internet, and particularly by social media platforms. These are extremely biased and so there is no freedom of speech for expressing ideas in the primary public platform of our times. Even on private forums, it is almost impossible to find one that allows free speech. This forum is a very unusual exception. I am banned from all forums of modern culture, both of the Left and the Right. There is literally no way to engage in dialog with members of modern culture, which is another one of the many reasons why I favor their extermination.

Sigh. See the problem? Your genocidal thoughts trigger people which is not surprising. Maybe you should consider stop telling people you want them genocided or exterminated and then they'll be more likely to allow you to comment on their forums. Granted, they may be too restrictive on more reasonable types of free speech anyways, but still.

A lot of free speech types that are suppressed in Europe but not the United States aren't suppressed in the US because the US does not view an immediate threat of harm as coming from those views. For example in the US you are allowed to say you want Westerners wiped out because nobody actually expects you to go and do it and kill someone for their insulting of Islam, or for whatever other reason you have. It's just some stuff you said on the internet. If people reasonably expected you to be violent then it would be a whole other story.

I should also mention the Charlie Hebdo attack since that is also a practical issue. From my perspective, all decent cultures, including Islam and other sane religions, are at war with modern culture. The question of the rights of free speech for one's enemy in war isn't terribly relevant. The real question regarding any attack on the enemy is whether it was successful in weakening in the enemy. And in this regard, the Charlie Hebdo attack was a resounding success since the spineless scum of modern culture are easily intimidated by violence. Since this attack, insults of Islam have greatly decreased and Islam is growing rapidly in the degenerate West which should hopefully soon lead to the demise of the West.

My practical commitment to free speech should be obvious by my moderation of this forum and other forums that I moderate. I also spend a lot of time promoting free speech within Islam, which I believe is the only place where free speech has a real chance to make a comeback. Now if you will acknowledge that in practice I support free speech far more than the general population, then we can move on to the topic of genetics.

I'm not going to agree with you on free speech. You literally have a genocidal agenda against anyone who insults your religion. Chances are you don't actually kill anyone though you just fervently wait for others to do it, but that is not too much less disturbing. In other words if I say I think the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are just fine what that really means is you are fervently waiting for someone to kill me since I am a Westerner, is that about right?

All this talk about whatever your beliefs are doesn't matter at the end of the day if the end result of your beliefs is you are willing to kill people for expressing honest Anti-Islam opinions. Insults are basically just people's honest negative emotions, often combined with jokes, which are just attempts at humor. None of that is 'anti free speech', and it is not Violence if someone hurts your feelings. It is violence if you want to kill them for hurting your feelings.

If someone depicted Muhammad, it's obvious they would be fine with doing this since they're not a Muslim. You as a Muslim do not have a right to make everyone else follow Muslim rules. Your religion does not have a right to control x amount of people or x percentage of the population in any given country, if people are persuaded by insults that's on them.Rights in society are oriented around individuals not groups. Also, you never responded yet again to my comments on the Muslim penalty for Apostasy/leaving the religion:Death. Unless you think the religion has the right to rule over the individual and are against free thought? What that means is you're ok with being a slave to Islam if you agree with that, since that means your free thought is not allowed to choose 'I no longer believe in islam' without you being killed. Unless of course, you believe there is no death penalty for Apostasy and that this is all one big hoax or something, or 'not True Islam'. I would certainly prefer if you believed that but i am not so sure given your support of people murdering people for hurting their feelings about religion. I'm not trying to insult you by saying that, by the way, it literally seems to be your specific belief. I see little other way to say it accurately without saying it's about hurt feelings/Muslims being offended that anyone else is not a Muslim and does not obey their rules.

You can go right on ahead and mention Genetics too even if you still want to argue about free speech but i'm fine with it whether you cover both topics at once, focus on Genetics, or focus on free speech.

[Moretorque]

I want to hear what he has to say about genetics, Ashkenazi Jewry has been accused of practicing Eugenics going back centuries by breeding the smart with the smart and the unusual genetic traits they have mean they have created a race of sorts over the last several centuries. I am talking about the true ones who interbreed going back who knows how long.

No matter how you look at it we are all just a different variation of blacks in my book... Except Cornfed of course, a one off unexplainable mutation superior to all others.

[fschmidt]

The point isn't that some people have laws against some kinds of free speech. But most people do not support some kind of Theocracy where you're not allowed to say anything but a state religion, or a totalitarian state where you must support the official government positions always, or etc. And just because you're probably not in favor of a Theocracy like that doesn't mean you aren't against free speech enough for me to have a problem with your views. Yes some European countries have much less free speech than America. But ultimately you still want Muslims to kill people for insulting Islam which i think is pretty crazy.

Cornfed is right, you are a troll.

Sigh. See the problem? Your genocidal thoughts trigger people which is not surprising. Maybe you should consider stop telling people you want them genocided or exterminated and then they'll be more likely to allow you to comment on their forums. Granted, they may be too restrictive on more reasonable types of free speech anyways, but still.

I was banned long before I reached this conclusion.

You as a Muslim

I am not Muslim, you idiot.

You can go right on ahead and mention Genetics too even if you still want to argue about free speech but i'm fine with it whether you cover both topics at once, focus on Genetics, or focus on free speech.

This conversation is over but here are the relevant links about genetics.

viewtopic.php?t=20929
http://www.mikraite.org/Human-Evolution-tp17.html