Spike

You know what I meant, don't play the jokester. You say that but a nation like Pakistan is a world apart from Australia for example; culturally, ethnically, philosophically, religiously; that it may as well be a parallel world. I didn't say 'All Muslim...', at all. In fact you are the one that has made more absolute claims than myself. We (at the very least, I) aren't speaking of people that culturally associate with Islam, I'm speaking of people that actually practise Islam. Just like if I were speaking about Jew or Christians, I'd make the differentiation between cultural and practising. A practising Jew is very different from a cultural Jew and the same applies to Muslims. That is just Turkey and Lebanon, I've known people (Pakistani in this instance) that have practically turned into a pariah by their families for becoming Atheists, I didn't say it was absolute just that it does happen within Islam. Just from my experiences it happens to a slightly less severe degree with Judaism and Chrisitanity. I'd say Shiaism is more based on Ali and the Twelve Imams but whatever. How much have these reforms changed Islam on the whole (I actually don't know)? I was more in reference to Shiite (as that is the overwhelming majority), I can't think of any modern examples of someone breaking away from Orthodox Shiite to create a religion and culture that is compatible with western society. Of course there are exceptions to the rule and many Muslims integrate perfectly and Bosnian could even be considered a western society. Maybe the reason some Muslims don't comment if because they don't care? Or perhaps the support it? Or perhaps they aren't really Muslims, just someone that culturally identifies as Muslim?

There will never be reform or a modernisation if people don't breakaway and stand up. They never have and seemingly never will because apostasy is a grave sin in the Islamic world, leaving to complete social death and sometimes even physical death. What if Martin Luther did not speak up? What if Henry VIII never stood his ground? Black people and Islam is a false equivalency.

Half of the debates in this thread are people misunderstanding each other and posting in circles. I'm entirely in that half.

I was called a 'lefty on welfare' on Facebook because I said something along the lines of 'blame the system, not the people that abuse it'.

I'll see it when I believe it. I'll rate him when I watch him play.

No need to be condescending. No, you cannot say that the uncomfortable feeling is 100% born of human society. You cannot compare a gay penguin to a gay human, humans are a more complex than penguins. Not many animals even commit suicide, I don't think any intentionally do besides the carpenter ant. In the book Sexual Fluidity the author nots dozens of homosexuals over a period of a decade that have engaged in heterosexual behaviour and even have even ended married with children. NO, human sexuality isn't set in stone, it isn't clearly defined and strictly doesn't fall into a convenient labels like you said. I do not agree that a child can be subjected to hormone treatment and I find it immoral to do so, just like I find gay conversion to be immoral (which for some reason you believe me to be an advocate of). A child isn't aware enough to actually understand the ramifications of transgenderism, nor can they possibly grasp the intricacies of human sexuality. Therapy to understand their situation is far more beneficial than hormone therapy. Because humans change, an eight year-old that wants to be a girl may not feel the same within a decade. That being said it is currently legal and a consenting adult is more than free to undergo conversion therapy, as America is a free nation and they have the sexual freedom to do so. It is not my right to tell them they cannot, I can suggest alternatives but I won't force anything on anyone.

I didn't say it was the answer and your point 'educate their community to become more accepting and loving of them' has nothing to do with this; there was nothing stated about outside influences from the community or society, that isn't even close to what I've posted. I stated 'I don't want to be attracted to men' not 'I don't want to be beacause I got bullied at shcool'. In the West we've largely accepted LGBTs but that doesn't mean an LGBT person necessarily wants to be that way. There may be many or there may be few but I'd wager some would like to have the opportunity to have their own child with the person they love, and there is nothing wrong with that, just like there is nothing wrong with being LGBT. Besides, I didn't' directly state the child was gay, just they were attracted to the same sex. They could be Bi, they could just be curious, it could just be a brief period of life, they could just be confused going through puberty. I went through puberty and it's a weird and confusing time. Another point is that sexuality changes, people change, usually not awfully too much but they do happen. That is why you'll met a lesbian and then ten years later she has a husband and two kids, I've seen it happen; or even the reverse. For some bizarre reason, hormone therapy for a child that is 'transgender' is okay but gay conversion is immoral. To me they are both in the same ballpark and both must be treated as equally moral or immoral. Either both are illegal for persons under 18 years of age, or they are both legal. Also I said this: I did not state in any case that conversion therapy is harmful or harmless to a child, merely stating that the government has no right to intervene in any situation that does not cause harm to a child. If it were harmless to a child, then a family would have all rights to do so as long as it follows the child's will. It is not my personal belief that it is even an option to consider but that doesn't mean I would force a family or individuals to or not to choose whether their child or themselves goes through hormone therapy or gay conversion. If sexual rights and freedoms do exist then it is up to their own discretion how to live their lives.

I've come to the conclusion that the left is entirely hypocritical of sexuality. If sexuality is indeed malleable and fluid as they say it is, then a gay person is allowed to undergo Gay Conversion Therapy under their own discretion. As long as no objective and observational harm comes to a child then the government has no right in telling parents how to raise their child. If a fifteen year-old boy approaches his parents and says "I do not like being attracted to men, it makes me uncomfortable" then the government has no right in how the boy and his parents handle the situation, whether that be therapy to change, or therapy to accept, it is the discretion of the family to choose. Sexuality isn't set in stone and if a straight person can become more attracted to the same sex over time then the same can happen in the opposite scenario. Government meddling in the private lives of the family is an obstruction of liberty. You don't have to like it but if a gay person wants to be straight they are allowed to be. That is what sexual freedom is. Also, I've read VP Pence's support of mandatory EST is a fabrication, there was so such statements ever made.

Yep, he was pretty much 50/50 staying or being dealt. I watched a short doco about it a while back and Habs fans were really losing patience with Price. There was a hugely controversial decision made by the office on keeping Halak or Price, they went with the later and eventually Price turned from Public Enemy No.1 to the favoured hero of Montreal. Price is now a franchise player, head and shoulders above all the other goaltenders in the NHL. He is so dominant on form, he carries the Habs to the playoffs. It's not like the Habs are a bad team either, they are quite talented but without Price, they wouldn't be anywhere close the playoffs. The Halak vs. Price situation really mirrors Cech vs Courtois in a lot of ways.

I'm sure there is a comfy place in hell for him.

This match has barely kept my interest this half.

Well, there are a lot more Catholics than Jews, no? It's like one quarter of America. Besides people see Catholicism as a choice, one can be a Catholic and leave the church and no longer be a Catholic. That isn't the same in Judaism, no matter what a Jew does, they are still a Jew, even if they convert.

People get these paranoid delusions because Jews are over-represented in the media. When half of Hollywood films have Jewish stars, when half of what we see on TV is Jewish people start to get skewed views on reality. In actuality it's just because Jews pretty much created Hollywood and many Jewish cultures have learning and success as an important part of their culture. It's no surprise when a culture that has history of achieving has many people in powerful positions. From my perspective that is something to be proud of. Really, how many Jews go to Temple weekly, practise a Kosher lifestyle and read the Torah daily? Outside of the Hasidic freaks in Brooklyn (I've heard some horror stories about them) not many.

I love Milo Yiannopoulos but he is wrong on what the alt-right is. The alt-right is a movement that states there can be no Western Civilisation without European ethnicity and the two are intrinsically inseparable, it is a concept that rejects integration and refuses to accept that anyone other than those with European heritage can be truly western. It is broad Euro-nationalism at its core. Yiannopolous isn't alt-right, he is a neo-con with very libertarian views on free speech. Most people think the alt-right is an ideology that rejects the establishment, rejects globalism and rejects political correctness and the big government that comes with it. It isn't. David Duke (former Klansmen) and Richard B. Spencer (Neo-Nazi) are two examples of the true alt-right. http://www.dailywire.com/news/8638/what-alt-right-ben-shapiro

What does that even mean?

This is the politics thread. Everyone is entitled to an opinion here, no matter how heated, controversial or misinformed. It up to people to engage with others and give them a new view point, a new perspective, not to ridicule them or cry 'wolf' when they hurt your feelings. Challenge ideas, challenge their opinions, because that is the only way you'll change someone. Banning them, censoring their opinions will lead to nothing. Making a hateful or prejudiced person change their mind is an infinitely better good than just shaming them and removing their voice.

"Completely fine with the message" Don't make me laugh you delusional fool. You act like I read every single post on this forum, I do not and in fact I haven't even read that post, just you whinging about anti-semitism, and I came to defend myself against your allegations. Next time, tell me why it's a problem instead of just demanding that I ban someone, I'm not here to get offended for you. I haven't banned anyone in a long time, just so you know, mainly because I don't do it anymore. But that doesn't change a thing because according to you I hate Jews. Maybe I should ban both you, Leif for anti-semitism and you for slander against my character. That'd be fair. By the way, who have I personally banned for childish reasons? Please tell me.

It wasn't ignored you daft bastard, I read it personally and shared it with the other staff members, and if it was ignored it wouldn't be because of his faith. Why are you hiding behind the slander of 'anti-semitism', that is a toxic word if I ever read one. You have no evidence of anti-semitism yet you find time to character assassinate because of your own victim complex. Why don't you challenge this supposed anti-semitism instead of crying about it? I'm not here to protect your feelings, so man up and prove them wrong. Next time you spout that bullshit you better have a fantastic piece of evidence.

It's a bloody alias that she has had for years. I can have an alias, look my name is now 吉良 吉影. That doesn't mean I'm Japanese. I really cannot fathom why you are so obsessed with the naming. She has purple hair and red eyes when every other character that isn't a cyborg is realistic looking, she doesn't look human, she looks synthetic and that is why I mentioned earlier an inhuman and ambiguous appearance would be most appropriate. She isn't a typical case, I'd accept all the characters of Akira would have to be Japanese or all the Samurai Champloo but not this science fiction. And guess what Oshii the original director for GITS supports the decision, on top of that Shirow has stated that her body is a 'mass production' model and that her body looks nothing like her original body. I have not, will not accept that her shell is explicitly meant to be Japanese in appearance. On the otherhand characters like Togusa are 100% Japanese. Chi Chi looks exactly the same as Android 18, because every character in DBZ has the same face. Even Piccolo has the same face.

Japan doesn't even bloody exist in Dragon Ball, it's pure fantasy.

Goku is an alien and Motoko is a cyborg. This isn't disrespect to the source material at all it's you reading to much into something that has nothing to do with series as Motoko's nationality has little if anything to do with her character. It's a futuristic sci-fi fiction series with cyborgs running around doing clandestine government business, they aren't portraying Oda Nobunaga as a white man. Hell, to be honest we don't even know if Motoko was Japanese, or if she is even a Japanese citizen, that is how little of her past we are shown. For all we know, she could simply have learned Japanese, or it could have been installed into her brain. At the end of one of the millions of series, she states she doesn't remember her real name, so her Japanese name is an alias. She might not even be a real human, with fake memories implanted.

The character is Japanese as GITS is set in a fictional Japanese city, that is why. The appearance of the character is meaningless in this context. You need to separate the appearance from nationality in this scenario. GITS would never be accurate unless it was entirely in Japanese, with English used in the international context. If Scarlette Johanssen could speak perfect Japanese, with the CGI altered appearance to give her a unhuman look, I think it'd make this film perfect. It won't happen but that is how I feel as a fan of the series.

Motoko (not Mitsurugi my mistake) literally gets her brain taken out and placed into different bodies. She can literally be any race. I've watched the show and several of the iterations, her race has nothing to do with this, one of the entire philosophical concepts of GITS is if Motoko is still considered a human being and if she has the free will of one. To be so focused on the race of the 'body' of the character defeats the entire purpose of GITS, it simply skips over the question 'is she really a human'? The name 'Ghost in the Shell' refers exactly to this, the body is just the 'shell' it means nothing, but the 'ghost', her brain is heavily digitalised; ergo is she still a human? I will reiterate the people being upset about this casting don't care at all about GITS. If you consider affirmative action to be a part of institutionalised racism, yes the later still exists but purely from a governmental law perspective, it doesn't exist.

That isn't true. The thing about anime is that people project their own ethnicity onto the characters. Most Japanese viewers will state that Goku is Japanese, while most Westerners will say he is white. @Sir Mikel OBE I consider institutionalised racism to be laws (not private entities) that target people of specific races. The last I checked Jim Crow was done. I don't really consider things like Hamilton or the Ghost in the Shell incident sincere institutionalised racism (Mitsurugi is a human that has had her brain placed into a machine, she can look whatever ethnicity necessary, literally anyone who has watched the anime would know this, proving that the people outraged by it don't actually care) . If you can find me a federal, state or local law that targets people of a particular race, then I'll conceded that institutionalised racism exists.