Say no to stalybridge mosque

#474: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Nor do you answer any queries or arguments put forward.

The facts are these. Your opinions and your views are minority. You insist this is because you think for yourself and everyone else in using the government has an agenda and is too PC. So there is no argument worth having with you.

May I also point out if you are the person insisting Paki isn't racist then you're null and void in this debate or faux petition.

#472: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:  Totalitarianism means no free speech and the banning of ideas etc by means of absolute state control to impose an official ideology. Criminalisation/demonisation by deliberate state backed over reaction to the use of a word during an argument for example, such as arresting someone for using specific racially based insults and massively disproportionately punishing them, is an attempt to assert state control. Calling someone nigger or redneck should carry the same punishment, i.e none other than perhaps a minor telling off, as calling someone fat or ugly. The police however are now under official instruction to heavily prioritise ANYTHING to do with cultural/racial overtones, however minor the actual nature of the offence might be. This is for example why many people say, 'the'n' word' when they mean nigger. In other words, the word itself is potentially unpleasant but no more than many other insulting words and should be used freely whenever appropriate. If it's used as an offhand insult it's simply bad manners and nothing to do with the state. I would only 'presume to be judged negatively for using it' by some if I used it an the wrong context, not for just using it. You have admitted you were wrong to say 'an entire generation finding a word offensive'. Presumably people of all generations have the ability, or lack of it, to discriminate whether a word is offensive and that that depends very heavily on the context. You have no idea if I'm in the minority in my views and something being 'outdated', i.e if it's modern it's right, has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's correct or not. I DO use the word very occasionally in discussion of the subject. Attempting to prohibit and censor it even when used in a normal context, by deliberate state over reaction and criminalisation is fascistic and overbearing state intimidation.

#476: Choose a nickname - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:  Of course Paki is racist, it refers directly to ethnicity. If it's not used with deliberate offence such as 'You f***ing Paki' it is in my viewno more harmless than Aussie, Jock, Yank etc. I have comprehensively answered the points raised by using facts and reasoned argument. You don't know whether my views are the minority. I didn't say 'everyone else' but was referring only to those who mindlessly follow the prevailing, politically correct, liberal ethos.

#475: - Re: Re: Subject Presumably you're quite happy with hundreds of thousands of fully conscious animals having their throats slit every year (a practice totally illegal for British slaughtermen) and consider it a minor issue, such as the dangerous and utterly wrong practice of having separate laws for different cultural groups. As for the uneducated unemployed, the British economically inactive rate is 33% the Muslim rate is 53%.

#479: - Re: Re: Re: Subject

Are you aware how animals are killed for consumption sweetie? Did you think they just go to bed and never wake up? Have you been to an abattoir? Unfortunately I know quite a bit and it is actually horrific sometimes so stop talking nonsense about halal. Thisnisnanclassic example of your prejudice. You can't stand halal, because of the method but other methods are fine by you (otherwise why would you bother singling out halal here?)

Also as someone else pointed out previously a third of Stalybridge residents have absolutely no qualifications. This is a much wider problem than bloody halal or any point raised! Nothing to do with the economy or lack of jobs. It's a cultural thing at this point.

#478: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nope totalitarianism refers to one person enforcing lawswith no input and is much different to a dictatorship. That said if the totalitarian leader eenforced complete free speech and no offence taken then that would still be totalitarianism. Stop trying to make out that use of an offensive word is extreme! I mean really, grow up. Offense isn't decided by those whouse it, iit's by those called it. There is no suitable use of the n word or any other. I say this because comments throughout this thread spoken as fact such as 'they're terrorists'  'they smell'  etc are often used with the p word which makes it offensive by association. Please also look through history and see our treatment of minorities and have some compassion and some forethought before you decide that you have the right to use a word and can use it in appropriate settings. When on earth are you using the n word and it's perfectly ok? Christ.

You can sit there for the rest of your boring life and say your not racist. But you're judged on your action so if you constantly have to reassure and accuse the opposition of extremism to justify yourself then you are. However you want to dance around the houses in your argument. You flit from one point to the next insisting no other is answering questions but your arguments all just become a complete joke when you raise this point. You've undone any work you had done by insisting the right to use the wordiu

#481: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:  I might for example use the word nigger in debates such as this. I wouldn't use it in an offensive context as it would be bad manners. 'There is no suitable use of the 'n' word', that's  an extremely dogmatic and fascistic approach. Don't compare me with a few abusive bigots on here, although indeed a large proportion of your 'argument' consists of unreasoning abuse, such as unfounded and predictable accusations of racism, and attempted demonisation towards anyone not toeing the modern liberal line, instead of responding to the reasoned arguments posted. Explain how a totalitarian leader could 'enforce complete free speech' a ludicrous, self-contradictory statement. I've never tried to make out the use of an offensive word is extreme, I've done the diametric opposite and specifically said it isn't, and should only be frowned upon and possibly dealt with proportionately if used in an offensive context. All cultures and races have preyed upon one another at some time in history, what has that got to do with the existing natives of Britain? Offence isn't decided by the issuer or the recipient it is, or used to be, decided by a sensible, balanced, proportionate judgement by the relevant authorities. That has now been replaced by attempted state diktat and politicisation of those authorities. I haven't accused anyone of extremism and have directly responded to points raised.

#480: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Subject Yes I have been to an abattoir. When I went the animals were rendered unconscious by electric shock and then killed (sometimes a bolt gun is used), the most humane and efficient method. In Halal the animal is killed by having its throat slit whilst fully conscious, a practice totally and rightly illegal for British slaughtermen, as it massively increases pain, suffering and distress to the animal. There are many videos to demonstrate this and extensive academic research to prove what is of course completely obvious, a conscious being undergoing this procedure will suffer very significantly more than an unconscious one. Many animal rights organisations have been cowed into mealy mouthed protest only about this abhorrent procedure due to fear of demonisation as 'racists' etc. Other methods aren't 'fine' they are simply the most humane available and to deliberately inflict greater suffering simply to appease a an alien creed is spinelessness and lack of principle of the highest order. I believe in New Zealand they have banned ritual Halal and only allow prayers to be said, which is of course fine. I singled out Halal spcifically because of its barbaric and abhorrent nature and the fact that it is dangerous, divisive and wrong to have separate laws for different cultures in one nation. As Muslims are 240% more likely to be economically inactive I can't understand why the unskilled, existing natives of Stalybridge should be singled out for criticism as if an influx of Mulsims will somehow improve economic matters.

#485: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subject

They attempt to stun the animal but quite often this doesn't work and takes 2 or 3 attempts. There is no clean way of killing an animal and severing all arteries in the throat with a sharp knife which then stops all blood to the brain so the animal loses consciousness quickly and bleeds to death. You haven't got a deep enough understanding of this religion to advise a believer to change their practice in order to be accepted in society.

You are fluttering around from one point to be argued in depth or another. From taqqiya to women in the religion to birth rates to bloody halal to what you misunderstand totalitarianism to be. Wise up. You have your opinion firmly set based on your daily mail facts so as I have said previously there is no reasoning with you yet you continue to spout your opinions as though they were fact and reasoned which they aren't.

I never actually said I was a spokesperson for a generation my love. I actually said the opposite more than once. The fact remains that younger generations than yourself count your standpoint and general statements as both prejudice and unreasonable. The same way you will have done for your elders in your time. Just keep it in mind when you ramble on to whoever can bare your self righteous tirades

"You haven't got a deep enough understanding of this religion to advise a believer to change their practice in order to be accepted in society"

I have, i understand them well, and i aint number 485, whoever he/ she is. Just remember, the vast majority of people who sign and comment on here are against this centre/ mosque, whether they be racist, islamophobic, illiterate, stupid, etc blah blah blah (all in your superior, worldly intelectual opinion), they DON,T want it, and that IS their right. And Please drop the condescending "My Love"

#488: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subject

#488: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subject Making specious, pathetic excuses for a barbarous, alien slaugthter practice fully demonstrates the fatal weakness of your argument. My neighbour held a senior position in a large slaughterhouse for many years and I had several opportunities to witness what goes on. Failed stunning is virtually unknown in modern humane slaughter practice as is failed use of the boltgun. By your 'logic' a theoretical Halal vet who dispatched ailing domestic pets by slitting their throats whilst they were fully conscious would be fine and equivalent to putting them to sleep humanely. To equate a fully conscious animals suffering with an unconscious animals is fundamental, deliberate and chronic dishonesty. Even if the odd stunning incident failed it wouldn't be the DELIBERATE barbarism inlicted by Halal and Kosher methods. To defend such a practice is shameful. I note you haven't responded to my point about the dangerous, wrong and divisive principle of having separate laws for different cultural groups in the same country. You clearly have NO understanding of this culture/religion or you wouldn't be so desperate to defend some of its more despicable and retrogressive practices. 'An entire generation finding a word offensive' a miraculous feat of mass mindreading. Younger generations generally don't have the perspective and experience of age. Those who have witnessed and lived amongst Islamification are fully aware of the methods employed and the true nature of this creed. As their numbers grow even those like yourself, determined to turn a blind eye no matter what, will be forced to confront the truth. Prejudice is by its nature UNREASONING, there is massive, long term, corroborative evidence to demonstrate and inspire REASONED opposition to the ongoing Islamification of Britain. Ask former and existing residents of Luton, Bradford, Hackney, Dewsbury, Bradford, Oldham, Rochdale, Tower Hamlets, Blackburn, Burnley, Slough, High Wycombe, Sparkbrook and numerous and growing other parts of the UK for their opinions on what happened to their areas. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with generational attitudes, it is about the survival of Britain as a recognisble entity.

#490:No-one has the right to discriminate against someone in an unreasoning, bigoted way, THAT is racism. If for example someone objected to the siting of a West Indian OAP's club on the site of the Pineapple that could be considered as partially and irrationally, racially motivated. If however they objected to the siting of an Afro-Caribbean young men's hostel on the site, some of the opposition would no doubt be based on the fact that many people are aware that official statistics demonstrate young Afro-Caribbean men are massively disproportionately more likely to be involved in street muggings. That would therefore be reasoned, partially racially and gender based, opposition. There would for instance be no similar reason to oppose a women's Afro-Caribbean hostel. There would be a partially ageism based oppositition to ANY young men's hostel containg indigenous and/or varied homeless youths as other types of crime, such as vandalism, theft and drunkenness would be more likely to increase in the area. Reasoned opposition, WHATEVER it is based on isn't prejudice, unreasoning opposition IS.

#491: -  SOME of the opposition is bigoted and prejudiced as is some of the  support that attempts to demonise and abuse reasoned objections whilst totally ignoring genuine concerns. The only controversial opinion in this debate would be one entirely motivated by ignorance, bigotry or blind hatred. 

#498: -  I'm not responsible for the comments of others although I agree with the jist of it. I've never denied there is racism and bigotry present just as there is oppression and demonisation of any opposition to this mosque however reasoned and reasonably put the case. There ARE problems with the exponential growth of Islam in the UK and attempting to dismiss those concerned as simply racist is unjustified, fascistic and intolerant. Reasoned opposition, WHATEVER it is based on, is acceptable to any rational person. Making accurate generalistions based on race, age, culture, gender etc to demonstrate a point is simply freedom of speech. Those WISHING to be offended or looking for offence are the ones with the problem.