- cross-posted to:
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
Several prominent Chinese figures, including top Harvard mathematician Liu Jun, award-winning computer scientist and blockchain expert Chen Jing and rising AI star Fu Tianfan, have since left the US and returned to China to take up roles in prestigious institutions in cities like Beijing, Nanjing and Shenzhen.
But Israel is fighting against an extremist and verifiably dangerous religious sect (Hamas). Surely that is righteous given your above comments?
And I’ll just leave this here. It’s well cited so follow sources if you like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China
They are shooting toddlers in the head, you Nazi.
Fascist.
Yes, you are indeed.
“I know you are but what am I?”
🙄
With regard to Israel/Palestine, both sides are infested with religious dogma, but Israel is an invader of Palestine. Israel should have no say at all on what goes on in Palestine.
You are making a slippery slope argument.
What I said was the religion shouldn’t be allowed “special” pleading. Not that they can’t have rights.
So perhaps I misunderstood when you said they don’t have a right to exist (e.g. can be banned)?
If a extreme religion is against what we stand for as a society, why then is it more wrong to ban a religion than to ban Nazism?
I absolutely stand by my claim that religion should not have special pleading.
Obviously Islam in Palestine is not against the values of Palestine. Palestine is not for Israel to decide over and control.
If in society it is illegal to discriminate against women, religion should not be a free card to discriminate against women.
The religion needs to change to respect humanitarian values, society should not respect religious practices that don’t.
Gotcha - free speech is at the pleasure of the state then?
🤣 🤣 🤣
And not even being able to answer the question. 🤣 🤣 🤣
Free speech is not absolute, and I live in probably the only country in the world that actually tried that!
Free speech ends for instance when it encourages crimes or oppress minorities, or is spreading harmful lies Religions often do all 3.
So it’s at the pleasure of the state then?
I already answered your question, free speech is regulated everywhere, it’s a moronic question, but I refuse to accept your rhetoric, as it has nothing to do with pleasure, that’s a loaded question.
I answered your question, but you never answered mine!
Again: If an extreme religion is against what we stand for as a society, why then is it more wrong to ban a religion than to ban Nazism?
I mean - you have completely agreed with me. You just like to phrase it in a way that is more weasel-wordy.
Let me piss you off by answering your question with yet another question - who is determining what is a “religion that is against what we stand for as a society”. And let me remind you who the current US president is.