3 of 4
3
Thier idea of entertainment
Posted: 06 November 2008 07:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
bigredfutbol - 06 November 2008 11:58 AM

For someone who brags about how much she’s read on a subject, you really are fucking clueless about the basics.  Yes, “Muslim” means “follower of Islam” you ignorant twat.  I have no idea what you mean when you say you think of ‘Muslim’ as a “type.”

Alright now ... don’t be mean to the special kids.

Eh?

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2008 07:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3208
Joined  2007-04-26
mesomorph - 06 November 2008 11:58 AM

I don’t make apologies for Islam, I am certainly not comfortable with it and I really don’t know what you’re talking about. I am against ignorance and misrepresentation, however, and I regard the truth - and nothing else - as sacrosanct.

As the father of daughters, I strongly oppose Islam’s codes regarding gender behavior as barbaric and anti-human. I also criticize fundamentalist Christianity for caring less about Islam’s barbarism than about its theological differences with Christianity. The latter criticism does not negate the former.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2008 10:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-04-05
SkepticX - 06 November 2008 12:22 PM
bigredfutbol - 06 November 2008 11:58 AM

For someone who brags about how much she’s read on a subject, you really are fucking clueless about the basics.  Yes, “Muslim” means “follower of Islam” you ignorant twat.  I have no idea what you mean when you say you think of ‘Muslim’ as a “type.”

Alright now ... don’t be mean to the special kids.

Eh?

Byron

OK, I was probably unnecessarily vicious.  Dee isn’t worth that much energy.

 Signature 

“It isn’t paranoia- it’s a heightened awareness of reality.” —our resident conspiracy theorist takes a stand!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2008 12:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  322
Joined  2008-04-17
Dee - 06 November 2008 05:41 AM

.. I guess it was easy to associate ” Muslim ” with “nation ” because I read the two words together(“Muslim Nation ” )

Huh?

But I don’t think of “Muslim” as a nation, but a type .What shall we call those people who are from places like Pakistan, Palestine, Eygpt , Iran , Iraq and Saudia Arabia ? Would “Arabs” be correct ? Somehow that seems wrong , but if they are a race, that has to be Arabian doesn’t it ? ...

You must be related
to the lovely Mrs. Palin.

.
Goodness!!! the ignorance.

 Signature 

Christian psychopaty:

Bruce Burleson
“.Tell me why it is wrong to rape, steal and kill….
…If I am a slaveholder in Alabama in 1860, why shouldn’t I enslave the niggers, fuck their women, and whip their children when they disobey me????
I’ll tell you why, and it is the ONLY reason why
..”

..he fears gods punishment.

Christians per definition has no moral.
They are governed by fear and fear only.

..and they don’t mind using the N-word.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2008 12:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  585
Joined  2007-10-11

No, I mean “Maldiva ” . Actually they are Islands , and considered a tropical paradise, great tourist ,and vacation spot.

I was mistaken, however, to say that they have recently been sujected to Muslim Islamic oppression and invasion. The fact is that they were introduced to Islam around the middle ages. Only recently (past 5 yrs. or so ) has there been oppression and cultural conflicts to an extreme. They live now under Sharia law; the kind Taliban believes is justified , so there is a lot of conflict. I take it we all know what Sharia religious law is, but it is not always practiced the same way in each Muslim society. For instance, some object to music and some will permit it.  These Maldivians are experiancing a lot of unrest and want freedom of speech etc.  To me, it seems like a strange place to practice Islam, because the environment is so casual and the weather so perfect for a little nakedness. The female natives there wear the usual Islamic dress .


If you have an issue with these things I’m saying , I ask you to take it up with any of the writers who’s articles, etc. I read. They are the ones who learned from. These things I might bring up are not my inventions. I learn what I learn from (hopefully )reliable sources .


And it is such a delicious joy to have found somebody to hammer and attack isn’t it ? Best time ever ! What an opportunity ! A place to vent much needed release of frustrations !  I’m disappointed in you. Name-calling is such a destructive thing, and should be beneath anyone who uses this board. And forget about “race”. You are the one who wants to talk about the subject, not me.  Too bad you don’t really know me. You’d laugh and wonder why you ever thought that way. I dislike Barack Obama because he’s Barack Obama, not because he’s some race. I view him as an individual, not anything else. People are so darned touchy about that subject .There are so many interpretations of one thing . People think what they want to think. We will see if he makes a good president. If he does, I may forget that his style irks me , and that he kept some bad company when he was younger.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2008 01:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  497
Joined  2006-06-15
Dee - 07 November 2008 05:44 AM

No, I mean “Maldiva “

Ah, you mean the Maldives. Glad we finally got that sorted out! The Maldives are a group of coral atolls in the Indian ocean about 500 miles southwest of Sri Lanka. Islam has been state religion there ever since the 12th century. The government has recently altered the country’s constitution to make Sharia law official. Not surprising as they are all Muslims.

 Signature 

Affiliation creates division. Friendship is better than membership.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2008 06:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-04-05
mesomorph - 07 November 2008 06:43 AM
Dee - 07 November 2008 05:44 AM

No, I mean “Maldiva “

Ah, you mean the Maldives. Glad we finally got that sorted out! The Maldives are a group of coral atolls in the Indian ocean about 500 miles southwest of Sri Lanka. Islam has been state religion there ever since the 12th century. The government has recently altered the country’s constitution to make Sharia law official. Not surprising as they are all Muslims.

She did say that she thought it was an island, but this was in the context of complaining about Muslim immigration swamping Europe and the West and imposing sharia on a non-Muslim native population.  Which, of course, has nothing to do with the (unfortunate) case of the Maldives.

You’d think, having been exposed yet again as someone who doesn’t know what she’s talking about and can’t keep the information she takes in sorted properly, Dee would learn to shut up.  But she can’t help it.

 Signature 

“It isn’t paranoia- it’s a heightened awareness of reality.” —our resident conspiracy theorist takes a stand!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2008 06:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2006-12-26

Do you judge any form of protest against a true injustice as just? Did you miss the part of his protest that suggested all in that stadium should be shot (he later ignored the expressed fact that several tried to save the girl, obviously at great risk to themselves—obviously they were there as well, and would have therefore fallen under the category of those he would advocate shooting).

As for clearly identifiable innocents, the case is rather different (I did not register the post in which the Guardian article was referred to, my fault).

As for the rest, in the final analysis, it is more wrong to let this barbaric continue out of paralytic fear (and thereby be complicit in the gruesome murders of far more innocents), than to implement an action that would be highly effective in ending that tradition, even if this would necessitate the deaths of a few innocents.

 

Consider the following scenario:
Suppose the woman to be stoned found, by providence, a loaded machine gun she could use close to her.
Would she be morally entitled to, with reference to her SELF-defence, to start shoot wildly about her in order to prevent the mob to stone her?
Even if she in that critical condition would not be able to clearly distinguish between “innocent” bystanders and individuals complicit in her impending murder, either through intended action or consent?

If some of you say that the woman in this scenario is NOT entitled to shoot wildly about her (because she might hit a few innocents, perhaps?), you imply that the only moral choice she has is to accept her own death.
That is, she is morally obliged to die.


The next scenario you might consider, is the folllowing:
Suppose YOU were standing close to the stadium, knowing that a raped, 13-year old girl was about to be stoned to death by a mob for adultery charges, and YOU had access to a loaded machine gun.
As the story relates: People trying to stop this act from happening, were shot to death (according to the Guardian).

Now, would YOU be morally entitled to shoot at whomever you thought (but were not certain) were complicit in the impending murder of this girl, or would your only morally acceptable choices be to A) Be an idle by-stander, or B) Make a peaceful protest, knowingly putting your own life at risk, with hardly any chance to save the girl?

[ Edited: 09 November 2008 07:59 AM by arildno]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2008 08:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
arildno - 09 November 2008 11:57 AM

As for the rest, in the final analysis, it is more wrong to let this barbaric continue out of paralytic fear (and thereby be complicit in the gruesome murders of far more innocents), than to implement an action that would be highly effective in ending that tradition, even if this would necessitate the deaths of a few innocents.

... because religious fanatics tend to comply with harsh deterrents ... right. We all know how well that works.

arildno - 09 November 2008 11:57 AM

Consider the following scenario:
Suppose the woman to be stoned found, by providence, a loaded machine gun she could use close to her.
Would she be morally entitled to, with reference to her SELF-defence, to start shoot wildly about her in order to prevent the mob to stone her?
Even if she in that critical condition would not be able to clearly distinguish between “innocent” bystanders and individuals complicit in her impending murder, either through intended action or consent?

If some of you say that the woman in this scenario is NOT entitled to shoot wildly about her (because she might hit a few innocents, perhaps?), you imply that the only moral choice she has is to accept her own death.
That is, she is morally obliged to die.

That’s a question of self defense. It has little if any pertinence to the question of lethal social justice.

arildno - 09 November 2008 11:57 AM

The next scenario you might consider, is the folllowing:
Suppose YOU were standing close to the stadium, knowing that a raped, 13-year old girl was about to be stoned to death by a mob for adultery charges, and YOU had access to a loaded machine gun.
As the story relates: People trying to stop this act from happening, were shot to death.

Well, fired upon, anyway.

arildno - 09 November 2008 11:57 AM

Now, would YOU be morally entitled to shoot at whomever you thought (but were not certain) were complicit in the impending murder of this girl, or would your only morally acceptable choices be to A) Be an idle by-stander, or B) Make a peaceful protest, knowingly putting your own life at risk, with hardly any chance to save the girl?

C) If my combat efforts would likely succeed and wouldn’t create the expected backlash in response thereby doing more harm than good, absolutely. I’d have no problem with that at all, personally (that’s part of why I signed up with the Army way back when). I wouldn’t particularly enjoy it, but I’d have no problem with it either. The problem is that you seem to be ignoring the nature of religious fanatics in your zeal to fix ‘em good. That’s just being complicit in the root problem with those people. Such situations aren’t isolated to the event itself, there’s a lot more to consider (which is why when I re-upped with the Guard ten years later I was only okay with being a medic).

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2008 08:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2006-12-26

... because religious fanatics tend to comply with harsh deterrents ... right. We all know how well that works.

Sure enough, they will. Eventually. If you are willing to become even harder in retaliating against whatever backlash you seem to live in paralytic fear of.

You seem to forget, for example, that once a religious fanatic is dead, he cannot backlash in any dangerous way..

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2008 08:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2006-12-26
SkepticX - 09 November 2008 01:15 PM
arildno - 09 November 2008 11:57 AM

Consider the following scenario:
Suppose the woman to be stoned found, by providence, a loaded machine gun she could use close to her.
Would she be morally entitled to, with reference to her SELF-defence, to start shoot wildly about her in order to prevent the mob to stone her?
Even if she in that critical condition would not be able to clearly distinguish between “innocent” bystanders and individuals complicit in her impending murder, either through intended action or consent?

If some of you say that the woman in this scenario is NOT entitled to shoot wildly about her (because she might hit a few innocents, perhaps?), you imply that the only moral choice she has is to accept her own death.
That is, she is morally obliged to die.

That’s a question of self defense. It has little if any pertinence to the question of lethal social justice.

Unsubstantiated assertion. Please enlighten us as to why concerns of self-defence have no bearing upon concerns of social justice.

arildno - 09 November 2008 11:57 AM

The next scenario you might consider, is the folllowing:
Suppose YOU were standing close to the stadium, knowing that a raped, 13-year old girl was about to be stoned to death by a mob for adultery charges, and YOU had access to a loaded machine gun.
As the story relates: People trying to stop this act from happening, were shot to death.

Well, fired upon, anyway.

One of them, a boy standing by, was killed, according to the article.

arildno - 09 November 2008 11:57 AM

Now, would YOU be morally entitled to shoot at whomever you thought (but were not certain) were complicit in the impending murder of this girl, or would your only morally acceptable choices be to A) Be an idle by-stander, or B) Make a peaceful protest, knowingly putting your own life at risk, with hardly any chance to save the girl?

C) If my combat efforts would likely succeed and wouldn’t create the expected backlash in response thereby doing more harm than good, absolutely. I’d have no problem with that at all, personally (that’s part of why I signed up with the Army way back when). I wouldn’t particularly enjoy it, but I’d have no problem with it either. The problem is that you seem to be ignoring the nature of religious fanatics in your zeal to fix ‘em good. That’s just being complicit in the root problem with those people. Such situations aren’t isolated to the event itself, there’s a lot more to consider (which is why when I re-upped with the Guard ten years later I was only okay with being a medic).

Byron

Okay, so for you, the continuance of the socially sanctioned murders of raped 13-year olds is less of an evil than actions that will end that practice?
That says quite a lot about your moral compass..

[ Edited: 09 November 2008 08:37 AM by arildno]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2008 08:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

You’re an ideologue Arildno, and ideologues, religious or otherwise, are the root problem. Religionists use religious faith to support it, non-believers have no fancy window dressing and so have to just gut it out on pure arrogance. You’re more impressed with your ideology than in reality (simply making intellectually vacuous declarations that the dissent of those who disagree is insufficient), but the feeling’s not mutual. Your points are weak on substance. They don’t mesh with the data from the real world. They’re ideologically rather than evidentially based. You have a singular grasp of how reality has to be interpreted, again based upon ideology rather than evidence, and instead of understanding other perspectives or considering troubling evidence you simply translate everything into your model (rather disingenuously), like any other fundamentalist.

Psychological adults don’t think that way, fundamentalists do.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2008 09:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2006-12-26
SkepticX - 09 November 2008 01:48 PM

You’re an ideologue Arildno, and ideologues, religious or otherwise, are the root problem. Religionists use religious faith to support it, non-believers have no fancy window dressing and so have to just gut it out on pure arrogance. You’re more impressed with your ideology than in reality (simply making intellectually vacuous declarations that the dissent of those who disagree is insufficient), but the feeling’s not mutual. Your points are weak on substance. They don’t mesh with the data from the real world. They’re ideologically rather than evidentially based. You have a singular grasp of how reality has to be interpreted, again based upon ideology rather than evidence, and instead of understanding other perspectives or considering troubling evidence you simply translate everything into your model (rather disingenuously), like any other fundamentalist.

Psychological adults don’t think that way, fundamentalists do.

Byron

Highly substantive post..

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2008 11:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
arildno - 09 November 2008 01:30 PM
SkepticX - 09 November 2008 01:15 PM

That’s a question of self defense. It has little if any pertinence to the question of lethal social justice.

Unsubstantiated assertion. Please enlighten us as to why concerns of self-defence have no bearing upon concerns of social justice.

“Little if any” is not “none”. And “lethal social justice” isn’t the same as “social justice”. You’re making categorical errors attempting to re-frame my position within the parameters of your own. This is precisely what more extreme fundamentalist ideologues do when they say pro-choicers are advocating infanticide, or gay rights advocates are trying to make pedophilia legal. It’s kind of like line tactics vs. game plan in football. In any given play any given lineman might have to defend himself against a cheap shot. In general, particularly if it happens away from the play, any such given singular incident will have little to no bearing on the game or the game plan.

Whether or not an individual is entitled to self-defense is about an individual trying (or not) to defend his or her person from an immediate threat to life and/or limb ... right now, right here. A singular incident. Lethal social justice is about creating justice on a societal scale through selective killing.

arildno - 09 November 2008 11:57 AM

As the story relates: People trying to stop this act from happening, were shot to death.

Well, fired upon, anyway.

One of them, a boy standing by, was killed, according to the article.

Actually it says the boy was a bystander, not a rescuer.

arildno - 09 November 2008 11:57 AM

C) If my combat efforts would likely succeed and wouldn’t create the expected backlash in response thereby doing more harm than good, absolutely. I’d have no problem with that at all, personally (that’s part of why I signed up with the Army way back when). I wouldn’t particularly enjoy it, but I’d have no problem with it either. The problem is that you seem to be ignoring the nature of religious fanatics in your zeal to fix ‘em good. That’s just being complicit in the root problem with those people. Such situations aren’t isolated to the event itself, there’s a lot more to consider (which is why when I re-upped with the Guard ten years later I was only okay with being a medic).

Okay, so for you, the continuance of the socially sanctioned murders of raped 13-year olds is less of an evil than actions that will end that practice?
That says quite a lot about your moral compass..

You’re presuming success, which is precisely the crux of the issue I’m pointing out that you need to consider rather than presume. Reality is a lot more messy than fundamentalist ideology (which has a lot to do with why those so inclined invest so deeply in black and white ideology).

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2008 11:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
arildno - 09 November 2008 02:11 PM

Highly substantive post..

I’d say it cut to the heart of the actual issue here, as I expect would most at least relatively observant adults.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3
 
‹‹ hilarious video      The Problem of Islam ››
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed
newrelic.loglevel = "verbosedebug" newrelic.daemon.loglevel = "verbosedebug"