chenGOD
-
Posts
20,748 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Downloads
Store
Everything posted by chenGOD
-
That's some nice whataboutery. I'm not a fan of other forms of homophobia either. No they don't, they just show there's no evidence yet that he had any contacts or direct support (he did know the american suicide bomber who killed himself in Syria). He clearly has ideological links. Terrorists don't need direct support anyway, having isolated cells is the whole point with modern terrorism. No I haven't, that's what you keep attempting to make it look like I'm doing to straw-man me. The different forms of Islam are obviously not equal, and some are clearly objectively better than others - given the effect they have on the rest of the world, they are all forms of Islam though. No it doesn't. Because I support them whenever they do it, unlike many on the left who claim that such people are traitors, native informants, etc. That's the kind of thinking that allows idiotic Trump ideas enter into the mainstream. No it's not, you've just ignored everything I said and repeated what you said before. Religion as a political force is separate to religion as a form of social control, both are bad, both are present within Islam today in worrying ways. It's not whataboutery, he was born in the United States, worked in a field where homophobia is rampant, and it's entirely possible that these were causes of his homophobia, which as you pointed out, was probably the main driver of his massacre. He's not a terrorist cell, he's a mentally ill individual with easy access to guns. Right, the different forms of Islam are not all equal, and the mainstream leaders of Islam have rejected ISIS' practices as being un-Islamic. That is, they do not represent Islam as it is currently practiced by the mainstream majority. You're going to have provide links to those on the "left" who are saying that mainstream moderate Muslims who attempt to counter ISIS on an ideological level are traitors etc. I certainly don't think that, and have read nowhere in the mainstream "leftist" publications that such actions are considered treasonous. Trump's ideas are that "all Muslims are potential terrorists", so when clever people like yourself say that "they're all forms of Islam", average people just lump them all together. That's what allows Trump's idiotic ramblings to propagate. These so-called efforts to silence criticism of Islam - you have yet to provide any sources for this claim - if they are even noticed by average people, would have much less effect than Trump blaring his message across the mainstream networks 24/7. Trying to silence critics looks like this: http://www.wired.com/2016/06/trump-bans-washington-post-latest-assault-press/ Why on earth would a group go through the trouble of trying to establish social control if not for the end game of political power. Religion per se is a bunch of morality stories (Christianity's golden rule, Buddhism's four noble truths etc. etc.). Using organized religion to warp those morality stories to gain political power is something else.
-
I'm not talking about ISIS, al-qaeda say ISIS doesn't represent their version of Islam either, it means nothing. This attack (or at least the choice of venue) was primarily motivated by homophobia by the looks of things (possibly exacerbated by the conflicts created by his own homosexuality - if that turns out to be true), and you can't really argue that homophobia isn't the default position in mainstream Islam, it's not just in the fringes. He was also obviously motivated by the militant islamist ideology to some degree as well, how deeply integrated he was into that world isn't really known at this point though other than he had made statements in support of them in the past and looked up islamist stuff online a lot over the last few years. They are the outsiders in that example though, ISIS are the only ones who can speak for their form of Islam, there is nothing un-Islamic about them, they just disagree with mainstream interpretation of the texts, their version is still based on the texts though, it's still a valid reading of them in as much as any reading of them is valid (all readings of religious text are nonsense IMHO), and from the outside we can categorise which ones are more damaging to the outside world, but we can't say which ones are or are not 'authentic'. No, it goes far beyond political control, it's about controlling morality, social norms, sexuality, etc. This takes place not through political means, but through social conditioning enforced via schools, religious groups, familial structures, etc. Of course that just gets worse with Islamism (or any Theocracy), where all that becomes the force of law. Homophobia is still rampant in large swathes of the "West". His links to "radical Islam" are tenuous, as the articles Lane kindly posted show. If only ISIS are qualified to comment on their interpretation, then the idea of it being "radical Islam" is moot. You've equated all forms of Islam at their essential level. Which denies opportunity for the moderates in Islam to combat ISIS ideologically. This kind of thinking also allows Trump to make his ridiculous statements like endorsing a blanket ban of Muslim immigration. To the second point: what you're talking about is the use of organized religion for political gain, not religion per se. Attempting to enforce social conditioning via has an end goal of political control of economic resources. I reiterate, this has been done throughout history, and ISIS' goals represent nothing new in this aspect.
-
I do indeed see the satire in this...especially if you pause @ 0:45, immediately followed by "カント" Should really be マンコ
-
Religion is generally defined by the majority of the leaders of the religion, and the people practicing it. So just like a Christian fundamentalist doesn't represent Christianity as it is currently practiced, neither do fundamentalist Muslims represent Islam as it is currently practiced. Christian fundamentalists represent Christianity as they currently practice it, non-fundamentalist Christians represent Christianity as they currently practice it. You really don't seem to get a very simple point that it's not up to outsiders to define what religious people do or don't represent or believe, they do that themselves. The majority of Muslims worldwide represent Islam in all it's conservative, misogynist and homophobic glory, they represent themselves when they do this, the minority today who take an even more backward literalist approach (Deobandis and Salafists) represent Islam as they practice and understand it, the progressive Muslim minority who do neither of those things represent their own interpretation of Islam in their own way; all three groups are Muslims (and there are many more groups besides). fixed that for you. Your argument about representing the faith is one that is absurdly reductionist. And we've had this discussion before-the majority of Muslim leaders are the people describing the acts of ISIL and the lone wolf attacks as not being representative of Islam. Not me or other outsiders. And you fixed nothing, religion itself is not about power and control, while the use of organized religion for political gain is.
-
Not sure if you're just hugely ignorant about this stuff at this point, or if you're just trolling. Can only assume your talking about the core tenet of Christianity point. Life beginning at conception is not one of the core tenets of the faith.
-
Flol. Choosing to defend your home with an AR-15 is a common sense choice.
-
Hahah insanely great.
-
Hilarious, you can't be serious with this. No-one is trying to silence criticism of Islam??!?!? The first thing that happens when anyone attempts to offer even the tamest criticism of Islam is that conservative Islamic groups cry Islamophobia, quickly followed by the useful idiots of the left backing them up, both groups are attempting to shame people into silence with slanderous claims of bigotry. More nonsense, we've been over this before, you were as wrong then as you are now. If a christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic then that act of terrorism is linked with christianity, quite clearly. Okay, well now we're all having interpretation issues here. I think no one's on the same page haha So, the link between terrorist acts in the name of religion are there on a fundamental level (of course).. As in some crazy extremist found a violent verse in his holy text, and took it literally and acted upon it. So yes- a link in that literal sense- but on a higher more abstract level- in terms of legitimate societal link, different story. "Link" is more murky, but then again the subject is really murky too. Apples example, I used earlier- A rotten apple doesn't dilute all apples, nor does identifying a rotten apple as a rotten apple make any kind of political statement on apples as a whole. Of course, if one just referred to a rotten apple as "an apple" and nothing more, it might not necessarily be fair, or telling the full story. Context. That rotten apple is still an apple of course, but it wouldn't quite do justice to all apples to not use the term rotten. At the same time, calling it just a "rotten" or putting it into another category of fruits entirely might be pleasing for other apples who aren't rotten, but it's not truthful, nor is it helpful in identifying the issue. Hence rotten apple is the most logical and sound way to describe what it in fact is- a rotten apple. yes but pointing out a link to Islam, or Christianity, or any other ideology, doesn't automatically taint others who follow those ideologies in different non-problematic ways. that's just projection on the part of the religious apologist. there is no true/single/pure version of any religion, and religion isn't defined by some subset of beliefs westerners or any other group find acceptable, it's defined by the beliefs and practices of the people who identify themselves with that religion, often in contradictory ways. Religion is generally defined by the majority of the leaders of the religion, and the people practicing it. So just like a Christian fundamentalist doesn't represent Christianity as it is currently practiced, neither do fundamentalist Muslims represent Islam as it is currently practiced. ISIS is about power and political control, and they use religion as a tool to achieve that, much like has been done with all major religions throughout history.
-
Hilarious, you can't be serious with this. No-one is trying to silence criticism of Islam??!?!? The first thing that happens when anyone attempts to offer even the tamest criticism of Islam is that conservative Islamic groups cry Islamophobia, quickly followed by the useful idiots of the left backing them up, both groups are attempting to shame people into silence with slanderous claims of bigotry. More nonsense, we've been over this before, you were as wrong then as you are now. If a christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic then that act of terrorism is linked with christianity, quite clearly. You can read accounts criticizing islam all over the net, and in all the mainstream media. No one with any power is trying to silence criticism of Islam, and no one here is either. I wasn't wrong then, and I'm not wrong now (solid argument by the way). No it's not, it's the act of a deranged individual who has warped the core tenets of Christianity to fit his world view and to justify his actions. Silencing criticism doesn't mean the government arresting someone and putting them in a reeducation camp, you're in serious denial here. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now, and that isn't my argument, my argument was presented back when we had it before. Yes it is, one of the core tenets of Christianity is that the life begins at the moment of conception, so from that point of view abortion is clearly murder (this isn't open to discussion, that's the logical consequence of that belief), this tenet isn't being twisted in any way, this person's worldview is a profoundly Christian worldview. Sure they'd have to violate some other tenet of the religion to kill another person because of this, but religion is never internally consistent so it doesn't really require twisting things to end up where such a person would end up, it just takes a certain reading to arrive at there. Just as the readings literalist Muslims give to their scripture are perfectly valid from their point of view, clearly justifying their severe homophobia, misogyny, and bigotry. No, silencing criticism means exactly what the words written mean - silencing. And there is no silencing going on. Your argument was faulty then and faulty now. That is not one of the core tenets of the Christian faith.
-
Hilarious, you can't be serious with this. No-one is trying to silence criticism of Islam??!?!? The first thing that happens when anyone attempts to offer even the tamest criticism of Islam is that conservative Islamic groups cry Islamophobia, quickly followed by the useful idiots of the left backing them up, both groups are attempting to shame people into silence with slanderous claims of bigotry. More nonsense, we've been over this before, you were as wrong then as you are now. If a christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic then that act of terrorism is linked with christianity, quite clearly. You can read accounts criticizing islam all over the net, and in all the mainstream media. No one with any power is trying to silence criticism of Islam, and no one here is either. I wasn't wrong then, and I'm not wrong now (solid argument by the way). No it's not, it's the act of a deranged individual who has warped the core tenets of Christianity to fit his world view and to justify his actions.
-
What next? Nothing next- Alco asked me for links essentially proving that this was more than just some one off crazy guy who happened to be Muslim rather than a radicalized ISIS supporter with connections to terrorists. And I did so. Pure congers mate. I don't suppose you read any of those articles past the headlines? HA! what do you want from me dude, what's your point? did you read every single article on the matter from every single press outlet? i mean if there's something in any of those articles that refute the headline, by all means. but give me a freakin break lol From your "FBI Links Bomber to ISIS" article: From the washington post article I'm not going to bother with the dailymail and RT links cause those sites are nothing more than clickbait bullshit filled with the worst sort of yellow journalism. I want you to read past the headlines. That WaPo article was interesting for this though:
-
Right, which is why Donald Trump is calling for a ban on only radical terrorists, and not all Muslims.
-
Except no one is trying to silence criticism of Islam. There's all kinds of problems with it, like with most religion. The issue at hand is simply this: when we identify terrorists as radical Islamists, it insinuates that terrorism is linked with Islam, which it clearly isn't, no more than IRA terrorism is linked with Catholicism, or Buddhists who use fear and violence to achieve their political aims are linked with Buddhism.
-
What next? Nothing next- Alco asked me for links essentially proving that this was more than just some one off crazy guy who happened to be Muslim rather than a radicalized ISIS supporter with connections to terrorists. And I did so. Pure congers mate. I don't suppose you read any of those articles past the headlines?
-
Ah the old naive at best gambit. Can't beat that one. You win! So now that you've identified him as a "radical Islamist", what next?
-
I'm just gonna leave these here: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/ex-wife-pulse-patrons-omar-mateen-was-gay-regularly-attended-lgbt-nightclubs http://wnep.com/2016/06/14/baptist-pastor-on-orlando-attack-are-you-sad-that-50-pedophiles-were-killed-today/
-
Just to be clear - what the father actually said was: "God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality ... This is not for the servants of God." In other words, it would get sorted in the great gig in the sky, and those of us down here on the mortal plane should leave that ish alone. One theory going around is the guy(Mateem) was a closet homosexer.
-
I think the problem is that it is exactly that easy to get an assault rifle and a shitton of ammo and gear, especially in Flordia. But but but second amendment Waaaaahhhhh
-
Pure congers.
-
It's literally never duck.
-
hooray!!!
-
Too much academe
-
Wait - are you saying Sine & Rib are moth enthusiasts? In that case, I take it all back; moths are lush. *hides enormous pile of moth corpses*Ah shit my lame attempt at being clever failed... Fwp: when you think you're being meta but it's really just scraping foetus off the void...
-
Vardy likely to stay at Leicester. We're apparently close to signing another young forward/winger in Embolo. Would have loved to have gotten Pjanic, fuck me. Juve's midfield is going to be insanely great. and apparently Jaap Stam is going to manage Reading. I wonder if he's as intense in management as he was on the pitch....
-
maybe they just want to chill in the stove and have some privacy mate. did you even consider that? it's possible they just want to flutter about there and relax, share moth items, jbc and shit? it's even possible they do it for the rush, the adaptation and the general backwardness of the act. it seems like you're being so ungenerous with the moths here. i'm sorry to bring this up, I just can't bare to see this behavior and not say something. Oh no no no, don't get me wrong. They can chill in the pellet stove all they want. They just better not fuck with my coffee again. You don't get between a man and his wakey juice. i've got my eye on you nevertheless. definitely reported to the mods That's totally fair, because they displace one more bean and it's moth genocide up in this bitch With an attitude like that toward moths, I'm surprised you're an autechre fan.
