Life

First point: Immoral =/= Illegal.The poll I showed says that homosexuality should have a penalty of jail time. Yours uses the word "immoral". Basically, you're trying to say that just because most Conservatives won't bake a gay couple a cake, that's a form of discrimination. Meanwhile, in Britain, over half the Muslim community believes in a jail sentence for homosexuality. And you wonder why I don't take you seriously. Secondly, you have answered most of my questions with "not all Muslims believe that". But there are full countries that do. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Morocco, Algeria... You clearly said that you won't use Iran as a measuring stick. Who will you use then? It's great that American Muslims are supposedly more tolerant. But I don't expect it to stay that way.

As for me, I'm on the fence with Donald Trump. On the one hand, I can never vote for Hillary. Gun to my head, I'll take the bullet. But Donald Trump puts me off so much and he doesn't respect Conservatives or understand their way of thinking. I do think that he'll unshackle the free market from government control (which is excellent in my opinion) but is the juice worth the squeeze? Are you saying that honour killings occur nowhere else in the world?Are you saying that it is just a coincidence that British Muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal? http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/ By the way, that's CNN reporting on that one. Not even the left can spin that to show Islam being tolerant. Is it a coincidence that 87% of Muslim women in Bangladesh (which is Asia and not even Middle East) suffer from domestic abuse? http://m.asianews.it/index.php?art=30204&l=en Why does Islam get a free pass? Why do you feel the need to apologize for a culture that doesn't see the need to do so for themselves?

Did you not watch the video I linked?According to Aynaz Anni Cyrus who: - Grew up in Iran - Had an Imam for a father and a religious teacher for woman as a mother - Was married off at the age of 13 - Was beaten by family and her husband - Has a fatwa out on her head (that is a death sentence) because she rejected the religion, making her an apostate like you and me According to her, she clearly says that a mosque is a Sharia court and not a place of worship. An imam who runs a mosque is a Sharia judge. Sorry, I'm going to believe her over you. I would like to believe that she knows a bit more about Islam than you. First clue is that she can quote Koran off the top of her head. Don't like Steven Crowder because he might be a bit of an ass? How about Anni's personal podcast? Go in with an open mind. http://liveuptofreedom.com/2016/05/there-is-only-one-islam/

I have not implied that because I said exactly what I meant.Radical Islam. That force that has ripped two full countries apart in a matter of years (Syria and Iraq) and is responsible for many of the ongoing conflicts right now. That is what I said. I also said (very clearly) that I have no problem with Muslims. But Sharia law is both barbaric and evil. That is an undeniable fact. And Sharia law begins to get implemented when mosques go up, as per the rules of the religion. A mosque is NOT a place of prayer but rather a Sharia court. Please do not misrepresent my argument.

So, the refugee crisis in places like Sweden and Germany and the historic amount of rape/sexual assault cases are simply correlation and really have no bearing on reality?You can put on blinders all you want but the fact remains that there are a significant amount of Sharia law based countries in the Middle East and this is beginning to happen in Europe. Europeans used the same arguments that you have now and guess what happened? This isn't a conspiracy, people. When you have men yelling "Allahu Akbar" before shooting up nightclubs and concert halls in developed countries, it's time to admit the problem. If you have women who are beaten and threatened with death for leaving the religion, that is a problem. When you have gays tossed off of roofs in Homs and Muslims in New York are somewhat sympathetic to this, you have a problem. I'm going to expand on Aynaz's idea. Islam is not a religion. A religion is based on faith. There is no faith component to Islam. You either follow the Koran as a good Muslim or you are an apostate with the punishment of death. Turning your back on the religion is also punishable by death. That is essentially verbatim from Koran and Hadith. Can the religion become reformed and this "religion of peace" that liberals claim it is? Absolutely. But a bloody civil war will need to take place to do that.

I've got an issue with the way we treat Islamic Radicalization and Black Lives Matter. First of all, it's so frustrating to point out that institutionalized racism does not exist in the police force because nobody wants to admit that. Hell, the black sheriff of Milwalkee even says that. He says that about a city that has not had a Republican mayor since JFK was elected and after a black cop shot a black kid (justifiably). To which the black community rioted and looted their own city and screamed "get the white people". Sure, let's blame conservatives for that. I mean, this same shit happened in Baltimore and Ferguson. All it does is promote racism against white people (which is still racism). And BLM is at the forefront, promoting racism while ignoring that the vast majority of these cases are actually lawful uses of force. That's usually a nice segue into a topic about the 2nd Ammendment but I have an even bigger fish to fry. Islam. The first problem is that none of you don't understand the word "-phobia". A phobia is an irrational fear of something. I don't have an irrational fear of Islam. I have a very rational one and so should gays, women, blacks and every other minority (before mentioning everyone else). I'm a Jew. There are multiple passages in the Koran and Hadith that call for my death because I am a Jew. Full stop. Want literal proof? Remember the Charlie Hebdo attacks? What about the concurrent attack on a kosher supermarket? Gays? 50% of Muslims in London believe that having a gay lifestyle is worthy of imprisonment. Not Tehran, not Medina, not Dubai. London, England. In Arab countries (which are, you guessed it, Muslim), homosexuality is punishable with death. Women? The Koran plainly says that if a woman disobeys her husband, he should beat her until she obeys. And of course, women are worth "half a person". Which excuses rape because per Sharia law (which is practiced across the Middle East), a woman requires no less than four witnesses to prove rape. Four fucking witnesses. I can barely get four people to agree on a restaurant for dinner in a civilized country. But don't quote me on this. Go look at Aynaz Anni Cyrus's stuff. She is Iranian born to very religious parents, was married off at age 13 (let's not forget pedophilia in the religion) and managed to escape the religion and country. So I would think that she knows what she's talking about. Skip to 22:54 for Anni speaking with Crowder about Islam. And watch the full interview (about 20 minutes) before responding back with "not all Muslims are like this". By the way, Aynaz's most interesting point is that Islam isn't a religion but rather an ideology with a God and Prophet. At the end of the day, why am I supposed to believe that these attitudes are acceptable? I'm not speading hate. I have no problem with blacks and Muslims. But we need to start calling out these problems as they are rather than excusing them. And both the black and Muslims need to decide if they are going to condemn or condone this behaviour. Currently, it's condone. PS: I'm very sure that the reaction to this post is "you're racist and Islamaphobic". Let me be clear: I hate racism just as much as the next person. But criticizing communities for serious issues =/= "racism" especially when people like Aynaz Anni Cyrus and David Clarke (the black police sheriff of Milwalkee) are saying the exact same thing.

Meanwhile, Tyrod's locked up. 92 million for a 6 year extension. Eh... OK.

Let's go.1) I believe in the 2nd Ammendment and believe that only proper policing will cut down fire-arm related murders. Sure, there are things that need to be cleaned up but there is no reason to eliminate guns from American society. 2. I have issues with the way abortion laws are right now. As in, the second that there is a heartbeat going, it does become infanticide. Ben Carson is miles and away better than I am at explaining it. I do not, however, believe that abortion should be entirely illegal because abortions would still happen but in much more unsafe conditions. But Obama's promise of abortion being "safe, legal and rare" turned into "safe, legal and commonplace". 3. I believe in the power of the free market (I'd love to see more laissez-faire markets) as opposed to the government controlling everything. It's more of a liberal attitude to conservative values. 4. I have serious issues with the left's moral superiority which always ends up being hypocritical at best. Any time Israel comes up in American politics (and we're not talking about presidential bids). That's a good starter.

Here's the thing. Milo has said multiple times that he loves and respects Christina Hoff Sommers even though he thinks that she's wrong. So the debate would be amazing. Also, Steven Crowder was part of it and he had this to say.

Israel is only good at one thing: Judo. But damn, we are really good at it. Yarden Garbi took bronze in her weight class and Or Sasson is looking for a medal. Plus, it always helps when Arab nations would ratger forfeit than face your team. But if you don't forfeit, at least shake the guy's hand. I'm looking at you, Egypt.

Milo Yiannopoulos and Christina Hoff Sommers tried but they kept getting interupted by SJWs every second.Long story short, it's already happened.

No kids yet (I'm 25 and people that I grew up with are starting to get engaged and have kids) but that's something I want in the future.

I might be really late on this one but this is too good not to share. I don't care if you agree or not; it's just funny. https://youtu.be/nOmPdoVgbyA

You're going to be hard pressed to find journalism on either side which is good. For example, I enjoy Milo Yiannopoulos but that doesn't make him God-Emperor of journalism (mostly because I disagree with some of his points). Same idea with Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder. And I have yet to find anyone as decent as them from the left (who I would love to read to get the other side's view when it comes from an intelligent person). Also, Cyborg. I loved Bernie (because while I'm Conservative, I do also believe in social democracy because it just works best due to practicality) and even I realized that he wouldn't have been elected.

The idea of a safe space is a place where you can isolate yourself from discourse because you may be "offended". Which is utterly crap.

Interesting take on Rabin's assassination.Except that politicians do get assassinated all the time for their opinions. Jo Cox springs to mind. And Rabin was considered less of a traitor than Menachem Begin in the same matter.

I love feminists. Because they need to turn everything said by the commentators into a sexist slur. It's the funniest thing ever.

When journalists applaud atrocious interviews like the ones that Hilary does whenever she is asked a serious question, then I say that the media speaks for the candidate. Julian Assage claims that he can prove that Hilary Clinton was complicit in the murder of an Iranian asset that magically disappeared from the USA and ended up in Iran (who was then hanged a few days later). And Assage has already proved that he has access to thousands of documents every time his bluff is called. So why isn't the media reporting about this or even asking Senator Clinton about the mis-use of information that may have costs lives? I think there's a term for that. Second degree murder, was it? If I have no intent to kill someone but my negligence or inaction directly led to their death, that would be punishable by a criminal court. If this is true, why are we still trying to prove that Senator Clinton is an angel?

I like to call it "beer factor". As in "can I sit down and enjoy a beer with this guy".For example, say what you will but Hillary Clinton has absolutely no beer factor. Obama had lots. Bush and Clinton had it in spades. It gives the voter a sense of "this candidate actually cares about my needs".

I'm down for fantasy but I think we should draft via Skype.

Last post proved all three of those points wrong. In fact, rather than paint those issues with a broad brushstroke, I am now going to ask you to bring evidence to prove me wrong as I have continuously done.But I want to talk about this point. Freedom of speech literally means "freedom of speech". I am free to say what I want. Do you take offense to it? Great. I am still allowed to say it. A country that bans any aspect of this does not believe in freedom of speech. It really is that simple. You can try to twist the meaning of the First Amendment all you want but if you ban me from saying whatever I want, then you take away my right to free speech.

1) It was against the idea that "feelings" are worth more than proven science and statistics and said user claimed to be 15. Well shit, you can't honestly expect anyone to treat that opinion with any semblance of rationality, especially from someone who has not yet properly developed full cognitive thinking (as per science).I quite literally stated a fact. 2) Let's go through one by one. Wage gap: Doesn't exist. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2073804 'nuff said. Racial war by police: Once again, I point to the University of Toledo study which points out that 90% of crime against blacks is committed by other blacks. If you want more, watch this. https://youtu.be/__Vj3DXwOBI White Privilege: I'm literally going to quote Ben Shapiro on this one and I want you to prove me wrong. "White Privilege is a leftist term that essentially says 'you are not a person of colour so shut up'. It basically says that when evidence of racism doesn't exist, that person MUST be racist because they are white." It's not verbatim but it fits. 3) Either you care about free speech or you don't. That includes my right to be offensive. If you want a law that bans "hate speech", that is fine. But you don't support free speech in that case. It's black or white. Either I get to speak in full even if you find it offensive or I cannot speak freely. You can't have it both ways.

I'm back!1) Undeveloped frontal lobe has to do with age. Again, biological facts =/= ad hominem. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468 2) "Filth" refers to all the bullshit that is part of leftist views that exist in education (we're really talking about university level "woman and ethnic studies" courses but it exists earlier). Like the wage gap (which would only be tru if you used the term earnings rather than wage), racial war by the police (I've already brought a study by the University of Toledo to disprove this) and white privilege (this is actually a lie because the USA is 50 years past segregation and has a black president). But if lies aren't filth, then sure. 3) The "special snowflake" comment refers to the fact that students "need" safe spaces to cope with the world around them. Do you deny this? Think about it. In what rational world does someone need to be guarded from the opinion of another person? We aren't talking about the incitement of a mob. We're talking about debates that include Christina Hoff Sommers who is a lifelong Democrat and gets shouted down when trying to engage in friendly discourse. So yes. Special snowflake is accurate. 4) Once again, humour as shock value is still humour. My best friend calls me a "right-wing nut job" and still laughed at that joke because it was funny. The First Ammendment protects the right to both free and offensive speech. If you have a problem with offensive comments, too bad. The only reason I am not allowed to continue with offensive (but accurate) speech is because this board does NOT believe in free speech by restricting offensive comments. If I was in an open forum, I would not change my rhetoric. In no way have I been hypocritical. In fact, you seem to have missed the point of my argument regarding ad hominems. An ad hominem is not a personal attack. An ad hominem is the use of a personal attack as proof in an argument. If I say "x, y, and z are wrong because of this and you're an idiot for believing otherwise", that isn't an ad hominem. But saying "you're wrong because you're a bigot" is an ad hominem (I'll quote Pheonix tomorrow who basically said these words). Thank you and good night.

Last post. Promise. The cancer bit? That was a joke that I shamelessly stole from Milo. And the fact is, people actually voted for cancer over feminism. 55% to 45% with a total sample of 22,000 votes. If you feel violated by that joke, please grow thicker skin. Seriously. I'm not going to apologize for it. In fact, anyone who reported me for it ratifies my point that they stifle debate rather than wanting to engage. A joke is a joke is a joke. If you can't recognize it, then sucks for you.

No, your frontal lobe is not fully developed. And so, you're literally parroting the filth that schools have decided to teach. Like that you're a special little snowflake.Well, you're not and it's naive and dangerous (when it leads to microaggression) to think this way. Tell me. What is so awful about being offensive?