Why Confront Islam?

[Monk-Eye]

" Eponymous Genetic Religions Nomian Legal Systems *

* When Racemization Is Ritually Bound With Land *

Still not a race.

They are if you hate them for it, dummy.

Do you even know what a race is? It has nothing to do with believing in an invisible being.

I know you are a racist. Do you?

Then quote me. I'll wait.

Why? You don’t deny it.

Would a strict definition for categorical racism necessarily include threats for , or acts of , illegitimate aggression , which constitute violence by definition as per non aggression principles , and any subject to the same is entitled to invoke a legitimate tort in self defense .

The pinning of a badge on another as a " racist " in an attempt to triumph in a debate is out of scope for a question for whether fictional ishmaelism does or does not violate non aggression principles .

These circumstances require rigor and not simply objectivity with practiced ignorance , and in deed informed consent is great in value .

The genetic religion of torahnism is bound with the city state of israel and an expectation that public policy for its nomain legal system is that it is neither intended nor incumbent upon any region or demographic extant of that city state , whence those descendants from an eponymous patriarch are remanded to assimilate and to establish a religious polity by name ; and , any directives for violence are limited in scope to that end .

Given that torahnism and qurayshism are kindred religions from the same patriarch but differ in matriarchs , qurayshism does not apply outside of hejaz .

Now , if qurayshism is supposed to apply outside of hejaz , that is fictional ishmaelism , then the implicit and inextricable violent directives to establish its religious polity by name are no longer limited in scope for the city state of hejaz ; and , any subject to the same is entitled to invoke a legitimate tort in self defense .

Whence , #i_slam_a_phobia is the paranoia and delusion invoked for over 1400 years to defend hejaz when it was not ever under duress .

As numbers translate into votes and public policy , citizenship should not be extended to those with tenets of creed that violate non aggression principles .

 

[ding]

Would a strict definition for categorical racism necessarily include threats for , or acts of , illegitimate aggression , which constitute violence by definition as per non aggression principles , and any subject to the same is entitled to invoke a legitimate tort in self defense .

I'm not using a strict definition. I am using a broad definition.

The pinning of a badge on another as a " racist " in an attempt to triumph in a debate is out of scope for a question for whether fictional ishmaelism does or does not violate non aggression principles .

Not in this case. I have quite of bit of history with this poster. I know what I am talking about. She condemns respect for a great many different groups of people.

 

[Taz]

Would a strict definition for categorical racism necessarily include threats for , or acts of , illegitimate aggression , which constitute violence by definition as per non aggression principles , and any subject to the same is entitled to invoke a legitimate tort in self defense .

I'm not using a strict definition. I am using a broad definition.

The pinning of a badge on another as a " racist " in an attempt to triumph in a debate is out of scope for a question for whether fictional ishmaelism does or does not violate non aggression principles .

Not in this case. I have quite of bit of history with this poster. I know what I am talking about. She condemns respect for a great many different groups of people.

Yet dingbat can't quote me. He never backs what he says up, ask him to prove god to you.

 

[ding]

Would a strict definition for categorical racism necessarily include threats for , or acts of , illegitimate aggression , which constitute violence by definition as per non aggression principles , and any subject to the same is entitled to invoke a legitimate tort in self defense .

I'm not using a strict definition. I am using a broad definition.

The pinning of a badge on another as a " racist " in an attempt to triumph in a debate is out of scope for a question for whether fictional ishmaelism does or does not violate non aggression principles .

Not in this case. I have quite of bit of history with this poster. I know what I am talking about. She condemns respect for a great many different groups of people.

Yet dingbat can't quote me. He never backs what he says up, ask him to prove god to you.

You need for me to prove to you that you are racist? You mean you don’t already know it?

 

[Taz]

Would a strict definition for categorical racism necessarily include threats for , or acts of , illegitimate aggression , which constitute violence by definition as per non aggression principles , and any subject to the same is entitled to invoke a legitimate tort in self defense .

I'm not using a strict definition. I am using a broad definition.

The pinning of a badge on another as a " racist " in an attempt to triumph in a debate is out of scope for a question for whether fictional ishmaelism does or does not violate non aggression principles .

Not in this case. I have quite of bit of history with this poster. I know what I am talking about. She condemns respect for a great many different groups of people.

Yet dingbat can't quote me. He never backs what he says up, ask him to prove god to you.

You need for me to prove to you that you are racist? You mean you don’t already know it?

Sure, go for it. I'll wait.

 

[ding]

Would a strict definition for categorical racism necessarily include threats for , or acts of , illegitimate aggression , which constitute violence by definition as per non aggression principles , and any subject to the same is entitled to invoke a legitimate tort in self defense .

I'm not using a strict definition. I am using a broad definition.

The pinning of a badge on another as a " racist " in an attempt to triumph in a debate is out of scope for a question for whether fictional ishmaelism does or does not violate non aggression principles .

Not in this case. I have quite of bit of history with this poster. I know what I am talking about. She condemns respect for a great many different groups of people.

Yet dingbat can't quote me. He never backs what he says up, ask him to prove god to you.

You need for me to prove to you that you are racist? You mean you don’t already know it?

Sure, go for it. I'll wait.

So you don’t know if you are or if you aren’t?

 

[Taz]

Would a strict definition for categorical racism necessarily include threats for , or acts of , illegitimate aggression , which constitute violence by definition as per non aggression principles , and any subject to the same is entitled to invoke a legitimate tort in self defense .

I'm not using a strict definition. I am using a broad definition.

The pinning of a badge on another as a " racist " in an attempt to triumph in a debate is out of scope for a question for whether fictional ishmaelism does or does not violate non aggression principles .

Not in this case. I have quite of bit of history with this poster. I know what I am talking about. She condemns respect for a great many different groups of people.

Yet dingbat can't quote me. He never backs what he says up, ask him to prove god to you.

You need for me to prove to you that you are racist? You mean you don’t already know it?

Sure, go for it. I'll wait.

So you don’t know if you are or if you aren’t?

I just want to see you flail around some more as you try. It's fun to watch you squirm. Just like now.

 

[ding]

I'm not using a strict definition. I am using a broad definition.

Not in this case. I have quite of bit of history with this poster. I know what I am talking about. She condemns respect for a great many different groups of people.

Yet dingbat can't quote me. He never backs what he says up, ask him to prove god to you.

You need for me to prove to you that you are racist? You mean you don’t already know it?

Sure, go for it. I'll wait.

So you don’t know if you are or if you aren’t?

I just want to see you flail around some more as you try. It's fun to watch you squirm. Just like now.

Hasn’t happened yet.

So you are agnostic on your racism?

 

[Taz]

Yet dingbat can't quote me. He never backs what he says up, ask him to prove god to you.

You need for me to prove to you that you are racist? You mean you don’t already know it?

Sure, go for it. I'll wait.

So you don’t know if you are or if you aren’t?

I just want to see you flail around some more as you try. It's fun to watch you squirm. Just like now.

Hasn’t happened yet.

So you are agnostic on your racism?

I'm atheist on you being able to prove it. Like for everything else you attempt to prove.

 

[ding]

You need for me to prove to you that you are racist? You mean you don’t already know it?

Sure, go for it. I'll wait.

So you don’t know if you are or if you aren’t?

I just want to see you flail around some more as you try. It's fun to watch you squirm. Just like now.

Hasn’t happened yet.

So you are agnostic on your racism?

I'm atheist on you being able to prove it. Like for everything else you attempt to prove.

It is what it is. And you have the inside scoop so to speak on your racism just as you do about the existence of God.

We both know you are a racist just like we both know God exists. It isn’t that important to me that other people know you know.

 

[Taz]

Sure, go for it. I'll wait.

So you don’t know if you are or if you aren’t?

I just want to see you flail around some more as you try. It's fun to watch you squirm. Just like now.

Hasn’t happened yet.

So you are agnostic on your racism?

I'm atheist on you being able to prove it. Like for everything else you attempt to prove.

It is what it is. And you have the inside scoop so to speak on your racism just as you do about the existence of God.

We both know you are a racist just like we both know God exists. It isn’t that important to me that other people know you know.

I bet you were itching to say something else you can't prove. It seems to be an obsession with you.

 

[ding]

So you don’t know if you are or if you aren’t?

I just want to see you flail around some more as you try. It's fun to watch you squirm. Just like now.

Hasn’t happened yet.

So you are agnostic on your racism?

I'm atheist on you being able to prove it. Like for everything else you attempt to prove.

It is what it is. And you have the inside scoop so to speak on your racism just as you do about the existence of God.

We both know you are a racist just like we both know God exists. It isn’t that important to me that other people know you know.

I bet you were itching to say something else you can't prove. It seems to be an obsession with you.

You mean like you being here? An obsession like that?

 

[Taz]

I just want to see you flail around some more as you try. It's fun to watch you squirm. Just like now.

Hasn’t happened yet.

So you are agnostic on your racism?

I'm atheist on you being able to prove it. Like for everything else you attempt to prove.

It is what it is. And you have the inside scoop so to speak on your racism just as you do about the existence of God.

We both know you are a racist just like we both know God exists. It isn’t that important to me that other people know you know.

I bet you were itching to say something else you can't prove. It seems to be an obsession with you.

You mean like you being here? An obsession like that?

Says the guy who's been here 2 year less than me and has 32,000 (!!!) more posts than I do.

 

[Votto]

In spite of what the Left claims, ignoring Islam only opens the door wide for Muslims to expand their influence in America.

Because if we don’t, it will continue to get more extreme. This is not Islamophobia, as many Muslims and their leftist apologists claim. A phobia is a baseless irrational fear. Abomination of Islam is based on irrefutable facts and it is not only rational, it is ethically imperative. Until the Western world understands the threat of Islamic ideology to their society and culture, people will continue to die. We simply cannot ignore this assault to our way of life.

A telling essay on what America is confronted by the presence of Islam.

Much more @ Why Confront Islam?

The poison of Islam is Sharia law.

The religion demands theocracy.

Therefore, their religion demands your submission.

 

[ding]

Hasn’t happened yet.

So you are agnostic on your racism?

I'm atheist on you being able to prove it. Like for everything else you attempt to prove.

It is what it is. And you have the inside scoop so to speak on your racism just as you do about the existence of God.

We both know you are a racist just like we both know God exists. It isn’t that important to me that other people know you know.

I bet you were itching to say something else you can't prove. It seems to be an obsession with you.

You mean like you being here? An obsession like that?

Says the guy who's been here 2 year less than me and has 32,000 (!!!) more posts than I do.

Discussing what I believe. Not discussing what I don’t believe. The fact that you do is proof you do believe God exists.

 

[Taz]

I'm atheist on you being able to prove it. Like for everything else you attempt to prove.

It is what it is. And you have the inside scoop so to speak on your racism just as you do about the existence of God.

We both know you are a racist just like we both know God exists. It isn’t that important to me that other people know you know.

I bet you were itching to say something else you can't prove. It seems to be an obsession with you.

You mean like you being here? An obsession like that?

Says the guy who's been here 2 year less than me and has 32,000 (!!!) more posts than I do.

Discussing what I believe. Not discussing what I don’t believe. The fact that you do is proof you do believe God exists.

Nothing I say or do can you show is proof of a god. Neither is grasping at straws.

 

[ding]

It is what it is. And you have the inside scoop so to speak on your racism just as you do about the existence of God.

We both know you are a racist just like we both know God exists. It isn’t that important to me that other people know you know.

I bet you were itching to say something else you can't prove. It seems to be an obsession with you.

You mean like you being here? An obsession like that?

Says the guy who's been here 2 year less than me and has 32,000 (!!!) more posts than I do.

Discussing what I believe. Not discussing what I don’t believe. The fact that you do is proof you do believe God exists.

Nothing I say or do can you show is proof of a god. Neither is grasping at straws.

In fact, the fact you won’t admit you are a racist or lie about it is proof of the moral law inside you that you did not put there and cannot get rid of.

 

[Taz]

I bet you were itching to say something else you can't prove. It seems to be an obsession with you.

You mean like you being here? An obsession like that?

Says the guy who's been here 2 year less than me and has 32,000 (!!!) more posts than I do.

Discussing what I believe. Not discussing what I don’t believe. The fact that you do is proof you do believe God exists.

Nothing I say or do can you show is proof of a god. Neither is grasping at straws.

In fact, the fact you won’t admit you are a racist or lie about it is proof of the moral law inside you that you did not put there and cannot get rid of.

Moral laws are subjective, ex: some people are ok with abortion, some aren't. There is no universal innate rule.

 

[ding]

So yes, there is indeed something you have already done that proves an absolute goodness does exist.

 

[ding]

You mean like you being here? An obsession like that?

Says the guy who's been here 2 year less than me and has 32,000 (!!!) more posts than I do.

Discussing what I believe. Not discussing what I don’t believe. The fact that you do is proof you do believe God exists.

Nothing I say or do can you show is proof of a god. Neither is grasping at straws.

In fact, the fact you won’t admit you are a racist or lie about it is proof of the moral law inside you that you did not put there and cannot get rid of.

Moral laws are subjective, ex: some people are ok with abortion, some aren't. There is no universal innate rule.

And yet you cannot bring yourself to lie about not being a racist or tell the truth that you are.

I win again, dummy.