Why are the progressives and left of the US so aggressive?

Post Reply New Topic

Anyone who thinks aggression is only coming from one side is deluded.

Actually most the mass shooters are left based and democrats. And I've seen tons of liberals threaten to kill pro gun people.

Citation needed for bolded quote. Second sentence is anecdotal, not evidence of a pattern.

No as mordern Christians since Jesus don't believe or approve of that. Jesus taught forgiveness and acceptance.
I don't care for your it's ok they do all this horrible stuff and murder people cause if christians were a government they would too. Put aside that christians wouldn't , two wrongs don't make a right. What they do is wrong no excuses for it.

We don't require women completely cover themselves in fear their cause men to rape them. Even after coming here they still impose that on their women that their some kind of property, I'd think that you as being pro women's rights would be offended by that.

I'm. It saying shove it down their throats, but they should adapt to some extent. Try to explore our culture learn our language. Instead they try to turn the USA into their old country, they try to get sharia law here or act like they have it,(a family we're going kill their daughter for dating a Canadian) I wouldn't go to German and fly the American flag and demand they change their laws to match ours and refuse to adapt their customs or learn ther language then build mini americas in Germany. I doubt Germany would accept that.
In the case of that family the judge sentenced jail time along with forcing them to learn about Canada culture and customs saying Canada won't change for them.

It's a much more extreme to liberals moving to get away from California laws then trying to pass similar laws in Texas.

Actually that claim is not supported by research it would seem:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/FactCheck_Are_most_violent_criminals_Democrats.html
Yet another case of fear mongering is all.

And where have you seen people threatening to kill people over gun opinions? I have seen some pretty toxic exchanges on facebook and other sites from conservatives, liberals and whatever else but usually not to the level of making death threats. People who do that are either stupid or want to get arrested very badly, or think they can get away with it after telling people and posting about those intentions online.

That first sentence really speaks to the divisiveness of Trump's movement. I remember social media brimming with threats of an armed revolution if Trump lost.

In fact, Trump had a few things to say about the 2012 election

You are correct that being a rape victim is not a crime in Sharia Law.

If a rape occours Sharia law requires four witnesses before the same can be stoned for rape. The trouble is, rapists don't usually practice their crime in crowded public places. They do it away from witnesses. In cases were it is known that they had sex but there are not four witnesses to confirm the sex was nonconsensual, they will assume woman had consensual sex outside of marriage and she is stoned for this crime.

A rape victim will have to find four male witnesses (or eight female witnesses) to confirm that she was raped, rather than had consensual premarital sex, or she will be stoned.

The four witnesses will testify independantly but their accounts must agree in every detail. We know that witness testimonies often disagree in the details.

A lot of the time, rape victims don't report that they've been raped because they fear being stoned for the crime of consensual premarital sex.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/16/british-tourist-gang-raped-in-dubai-faces-jail-for-having-sex-ou/

^ Here's an example.So if she gets arrested after reporting her rape, imagine how many thousands of rape victims never reported their rape for fear of the same thing happening to them.

Remember that according to the Quran, a man's testimony is worth twice that of a woman's testimony. So if a woman is raped by a man and he claims she consented, they will believe him over her and she will be punished for having premarital sex.

Here's an excerpt from verse 282 of the second surah of the Quran.Also, Shariah law does not recognise marital rape. Under Shariah law a man can demand sex from one of his wives at any time and she must comply. Even if she's "riding on a camel".

http://www.jpost.com/International/Islamic-scholar-Wife-cannot-deny-husband-sex-even-when-riding-on-a-camel-399454

This culture seems to be the polar oppisite of everything the left stands for. I don't understand why the left defends it.

Last edited by RetroGamer87 on 18 Nov 2016, 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Good idea. They are both violent religions. The Bible and the Quran both condone atrocious acts of violence and misogyny.

A few thoughts.

On Islam being a violent ideology.
Actually, Islam is a religion. Some followers of Islam subscribe to a violent ideology, some don't. Same as every other religion.

However, given the United States has the death penalty, routinely bombs other countries reducing men, women, and children to so much pink mist, regularly drones weddings and funerals, shoots up hospitals, kidnaps and tortures people, and so on, complaining about other people's violent ideology indicates a staggering lack of self-awareness.

On the protests being about Steve Bannon or a national registry of Muslims.
I haven't seen anything from the protestors indicating those are the policy changes they are trying to bring about. Does anyone have a link? Or are people just projecting their own (not invalid) concerns onto the protests?

According to AJisHere, they aren't pursing any such policy goals. They're just "protesting Trump's messages of hatred". If they were actually protesting a specific policy or policies which they were seeking to change, then these would be political protests and a sign of grassroots democracy in action. However, that would require the protestors to articulate exactly what policy they are opposing and what changes they want. They haven't done that.

Since there isn't any focus on actual policy, I think it's valid to say these aren't political protests. They're just a big, public temper tantrum because they didn't get their way and their preferred candidate didn't win. All that accomplishes is (i) undermining the value of actual protests aimed at real policy change, and (ii) make the protestors look like a bunch of spoiled brats lacking the most basic of democratic virtues — accepting the result of a vote with good grace.

On protests.
One of the stranger things about 21st century US politics is how there are only anti-war protests when there's a Republican president. When the president is a Democrat, all the anti-war protests just disappear.

Since I would prefer to avoid World War III with the US having a military confrontation with a nuclear power like Russia, I think having a Republican president is a good thing, since people are likely to protest any moves towards such a confrontation, whereas if Hillary won, I doubt they would have.

I cannot help but think that's a good thing.

Last edited by Amaltheia on 18 Nov 2016, 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Apperantly the US media celebrates Democrat warmongering.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/30/clin-j30.html

According to the Democrat Ministry of Truth (otherwise known as the media) it's only violent when conservatives do it.

Technically Trump hasn't been elected yet, as the people don't elect the president, they just elect the electors. The electors could technically still vote for Hilary.

Jesus Christ, The U.S.A doesn't even elect its presidents directly?

I was always jealous of you guys having non-compulsory voting, but I'd rather elect my leader directly with my own vote than 'elect an elector'..! !

While the woman ends up getting stoned for such reasons in practice, it's not actually part of Sharia law (the woman only having half as much testimony power is though, but that's a step up from women having NO testimony power, it's only defined specifically for financial disputes and it's ambiguous if that stands for legal ones as well, and there are some progressive imans all the way back from the Abbasid caliphate who regard the purpose of this verse was so that the women's testimony would be taken seriously in spite of gender based discrimination rather than being the result of women inherently being less reliable then men, so Islam was still more progressive than Christianity at the time). In fact, stoning isn't even a part of sharia law (just lashes, I'll get more on that on a second), but there is nothing about assuming guilt of adultery unless it was proven to be rape, and really if the woman is getting stoned the man should get stoned as well.

So, with the stoning not being a part of sharia law, you need to understand some things about muslim belief. The Quran is viewed as the literal voice of God and is immutable. It comes in two sections, the Mecca and Medina verses. The Mecca verses are on doctrine, while the Medina ones are about the civil law for the city of Medina, and is taken as the ideal legal standard as it is the word of God. In the Quran nowhere does it say adulators should be stoned (the prescribed punishment for illegal sexual activities is 100 lashes), and thus it isn't an absolute part of sharia law. The stoning comes not from the Quran but from hadith, which are descriptions of what happened during Mohhamad's life time and thus is used a role model, but it's not binding because it doesn't come from God, and some hadiths are just folklore. Considering that stoning was the typical punishment for adultery in the culture at Mohhamad's time, there is no reason to believe it's an inherent part of Islam. I'm not defending the legal practices in the Middle East, I'm just pointing out that sharia law isn't as incompatible with Western law as Sly thinks (and of course just because sharia law is to some degree incompatible with Western law doesn't mean that Islam is counter to Western ideals, as freedom of religion was created with Islam in mind).

Also, your claim that sharia law does not recognize martial law is incorrect, but needs a bit more explanation. You can't use modern legal definitions to try to understand sharia law because it predated them. The modern idea of consent was encapsulated in the traditional idea of the marriage contract, by agreeing to marriage you also consent to sexual intercourse. As extra-marital sex was illegal, the primarily reason for marriage was sex in order to raise a family. As such, there is a moral obligation for both partners to have sex. However, martial rape actually is recognized under sharia law, as it's illegal for a husband to compel his wife using violent force (there is a verse which says a husband may "scourge" his wife if she is rebellious, but there is some debate on what exactly "scourge" means, and outright coercion by force is outlawed in another verse), including for sex. There are also times when the wife is regarded as being in the right for refusing sex, such as when she is menstruating, or the husband has disease. Finally, the woman can divorce the man if he is being abusive, which specifically includes withholding sex from her, so the man is obligated to have sex with the wife in the she manner she is obligated to have sex with him.

...why is like everyone in this board Australian?

Quite the contrary, mate.

Of all the members of this website, Australia is one of the tiniest in member count.

Obviously the U.S. is the biggest membership here, but I've seen more South Americans, Europeans, Asians, and even more African members here than Aussies.

Including me, there's like 6 active Australian users.

Well, you know, once you've shown up at a polling booth and gotten your name crossed off, you don't actually have to vote. What you do in the privacy of the voting booth is entirely your business. If you want to skip voting and just put in a blank ballot, that's your choice. How's anyone going to know?

On the other hand, once you're in a voting booth with the ballots, it's not like there's a lot else to do.

I always like voting for the Senate. Those big white ballots with fifty to eighty names on them to rank in order of preference. Lots of fun to be had.

And in parliamentary democracies like Australia, you don't get to elect the leader directly. You get to elect the member who represents your district in parliament and then the members who constitute the majority party in the House of Representatives get to elect a leader from among their number. Usually you know who this is going to be, since they were the party leader going into the election, but as our recent history of changing leaders half-way through a parliament has shown — Julia Gillard in 2010, Kevin Rudd in 2013, Malcolm Turnbull in 2015 — the sitting members can choose to elect someone different.