Name one reason why Islamophobia should not be banned

Name one reason why Islamophobia should not be banned.

Other urls found in this thread:

breitbart.com/london/2017/04/11/ban-cars-newspaper-stockholm-attack/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Why would you want to ban sanity?
>Canadian
Never mind.

fuck off trudeau

freedoms.

free speech.

phobia is unreasonable fear

anyone fearing islam is not unreasonable as islam is terrifying - thus islamophobia dose not actually exist

DIVERSITY

because fear of an ideology is just irrational, are you like naziphobic?

How is that something that can be banned? Let alone it not actually existing, it's an attempt to control peoples thoughts and feelings.

>We live in a world were harmless neo-nazi's are called on to be beaten by anti-fa. Yet mention of fearing a suicidal death-cult televised every week is somehow irrational.
This timeline just keeps getting better and better.

Trucks of peace, suicide bombs and general Muslim bullshit.
There that's the you fucking leaf

Because it's fun

name one reason why Islam should not be banned
>protip:you can't

Saw thread from catalog
Guess:
Canada
Australia
Germany
Sweden
Turkey
>Canada

I hate being associated with faggots like OP.

Because Islamohobia is why France wasn't slaughtered by Muslim's by the 8th century. Sage.

For the past 2 days I've been seeing this one Canadian hating on other Canadians.
Are you an immigrant or something?

how do you ban fear, retard.

wouldn't it make more sense if it was the other way around?

Muslims do not integrate with non-muslims. Why would any country want them?

The first and 14th/15th amendments

Our constitution doesn't ban any form of criticism of another person's race/religion. Muslims need to stop being so sensitive

Nothing makes sense anymore.
breitbart.com/london/2017/04/11/ban-cars-newspaper-stockholm-attack/

Only after you name one reason why Islam should not be banned.
Hard mode: no muh human right/freedom of thought argument.

first you need to define islamophobia, then we can talk.

human rights/freedom of thoughts is an invalid argument when you're talking about banning thought/punishing human nature.

Because Islamophobia is simply a healthy and sane reaction to a dangerous phenomenon.

> Islamophobia

Hah!

Only if you make crime illegal.

I know that, but if you consider I was replying to a fucking leaf it needed to be highlighted.

you can't use logic versus delusional people when that delusion has been created by the safety of their environment and a lack of education about the real world.

Even if you argue within the confines of their world, they're under no obligation to admit you are correct because they are in no danger to continue believing what they believe.

This kind of amygdala atrophy makes them easy converts by a religion like islam, because ideologically on a core level they are both social justice warriors, but on a practical level liberals are cowards unwilling to fight a real enemy so when one appears they submit.

Think of it like demolition man. People used to civilization have no idea how to deal with barbarism from the middle ages, so instead of trying to deal with it they focus on what they know, out of comfort.

I see your point, but in short I am starting to believe that universal human rights were a mistake.

Because it does not exist. How the fuck do you ban something that is not even real?

universal human rights are not a mistake, it's just that nobody has ever entertained the notion that you can wave your human rights by acting like an animal.

^^THIS. SO MUCH THIS.
Thank you based Poland.

If you can't act like a human, you don't deserve to be treated as such.

This. certain rights should be stripped when necessary for a greater good.

How about you name the reason why it should be banned?

But thats rather extreme. Extremists just destroy themselves in the end.

Islamophobia should be enforced by law

not if it's up to the individual to strip their own rights.

>raised knowing if you break and enter the people inside the home are fully within their rights to shoot you dead
>break in anyway
>get shot

>raised knowing if you try to cross the border illegally you will be classified as an invader and shot
>try to cross anyway
>get shot

>get told if you try to ficki ficki you'll be shot
>try to ficki ficki anyway
>get shot

soon all you're left with is people who can follow the rules.

Referring to it as an irrational fear should be banned.

i don't consider such things as "being stripped off ones rights" though. If someone violates the rights of another there is no mercy to be shown to that someone as this is a means of protecting the rights of the victim. To what lenghs one is willing to go in order to protect rights is very subjective though and they can go even to rather draconian meassures and still retain all basic human rights.

FPBP

It's a fucking genius word. Conflates Islam and Muslims together which is then further associated with brown people so you can accuse people of racism and religious intolerance for criticising a religion. Labels rational fear, caution and disgust as irrational fear so critics of the religion of rest in peace can be dismissed as loony people.

All in all it's a word that doesn't have a clear definition and laws about it cannot be applied consistently. Also muh freedom of expression.

even if you don't consider them that way there are lawyers who argue that way to get their clients better treatment.

Lawyers are a waste of time. Every judge should bear their own responsibility in the end, since every degree of sentencing is arbitrarily subjective anyway.