Did she bite, then...?
Did she bite, then...?
only the media bait, as far as i'm aware.
It doesn't look like Crusader is getting the response s/he expected. Anyone for a flame fest yet? ;) ;D
Have I been bad? ;D
Considering only guests get protection in this forum and we have an election coming up, I've marked Crusader for what he is according to policy. ;D
Arsewipe.
Have I been bad? ;D
you have to ask? mind you, i can only comment on my own experience (i.e., how you are with me) of course, being a Fair Witness - just call me Anne...
(karma for knowing the reference, and if FWs weren't aspies, then i'm a banananananana).
Whats the big deal? Does noone agree with his original post?
It doesn't look like Crusader is getting the response s/he expected. Anyone for a flame fest yet? ;) ;D
Crusader's post was too moronic to bother with. He/she has posted here before, under other names, but they've never succeeded in excreting a semi-intelligent utterance.
What names?
In case anyone is wondering, I am not Crusader, although I would agree that Islam is a danger to the West. Not because of "weapons of mass destruction", but because of Muslim immigration into the West, high Muslim birthrates and the West's own liberalism. The delusions some people have about Islam never cease to amaze me.
those who are peaceful seem to be good damn people.
What if I am right about Islam? Then what I am saying is not a matter of "bigotry" or "hatred" at all, but a matter of self-preservation.
Making inferences about a person's mental state or "hateful" intentions before (or often just instead of) addressing their arguments is a totalitarian technique.
What if I am right about Islam? Then what I am saying is not a matter of "bigotry" or "hatred" at all, but a matter of self-preservation.
Making inferences about a person's mental state or "hateful" intentions before (or often just instead of) addressing their arguments is a totalitarian technique.
Have I been bad? ;D
you have to ask? mind you, i can only comment on my own experience (i.e., how you are with me) of course, being a Fair Witness - just call me Anne...
(karma for knowing the reference, and if FWs weren't aspies, then i'm a banananananana).
Heinlein? What was that book, "Stranger in a Strange Land"?
Liberalism is the mother of all evils. Through this we have allowed Muslims infidels to permeate our culture and lands. Now they have their minions within out midst, they will not stop until the society and value we cherish have been obliterated. It is an ulterior plot by the liberalist political classes in collusion with their Muslims friends, as they hate our country and our way of life. They seek to end capitalism and the consumer society because they accuse that system of irreversibly harming humankind. It is through their own disatisfaction with their achievements that they choose to wage a war on Western ways.
There is no negotiation with this foe, the only solution is a new 14th crusade by Christian warriors that we shall reclaim the Holy Land and redeem the inhabitants from forever sinning.
I hereby call on people here to join in this fight.
Liberalism is the mother of all evils. Through this we have allowed Muslims infidels to permeate our culture and lands. Now they have their minions within out midst, they will not stop until the society and value we cherish have been obliterated. It is an ulterior plot by the liberalist political classes in collusion with their Muslims friends, as they hate our country and our way of life. They seek to end capitalism and the consumer society because they accuse that system of irreversibly harming humankind. It is through their own disatisfaction with their achievements that they choose to wage a war on Western ways.
There is no negotiation with this foe, the only solution is a new 14th crusade by Christian warriors that we shall reclaim the Holy Land and redeem the inhabitants from forever sinning.
I hereby call on people here to join in this fight.
It doesn't look like Crusader is getting the response s/he expected. Anyone for a flame fest yet? ;) ;D
Crusader's post was too moronic to bother with. He/she has posted here before, under other names, but they've never succeeded in excreting a semi-intelligent utterance.
What names?
In case anyone is wondering, I am not Crusader, although I would agree that Islam is a danger to the West. Not because of "weapons of mass destruction", but because of Muslim immigration into the West, high Muslim birthrates and the West's own liberalism. The delusions some people have about Islam never cease to amaze me.
Whose sockpuppet are you, Crusader?
Whose sockpuppet are you, Crusader?
(http://www.smileyparadies.de/smilies/crazy/ugly37.gif)
salaam allekum.
ah. well the usual response is "allekum salaam", but that'll do, i s'pose.
Islam is a dangerous, fanatical, and horrible set of beliefs. Everyone who preaches it believes women should be subjagated. Muslims live in the 8th century, they are destroying the world through fear, terror, and revenge. They'd rather strap a backpack to themselves and explode than have any true morals. They're evil.Damnit you are the evil one!!
One of you did an AS thing! I can't work out which one though. :laugh:LMAO :laugh: +1
whats funny is that he could have posted this garbage in rookie refuge and gotten away with it.
will someone please tell us who this is.
i mean, people need to be held accountable for their words. now everytime i see a jehovahs witness i am going to think, that damned crusader.
damn rules:
i knew they would come back to bite me eventually.
but he did not specify fundamentalists, he generalized.
the only solution is a new 14th crusade by Christian warriors that we shall reclaim the Holy Land and redeem the inhabitants from forever sinning.
Crusader should had the guts to express his or her's opinions without having to use a sock puppet. However I agree with some of the stuff Crusader is saying, we are pussyfooting the menance of fundamentalist islam, it is totally unlike christian fundamentalism which is fairly harmless. Christian fundamentalists want to peacefully impose their agenda via the democratic process, Islamic fundamentalists generally want to wage war on everybody who does not subscribe to their beliefs, very much like the Communists and Nazis.
Islam is a dangerous, fanatical, and horrible set of beliefs. Everyone who preaches it believes women should be subjagated. Muslims live in the 8th century, they are destroying the world through fear, terror, and revenge. They'd rather strap a backpack to themselves and explode than have any true morals. They're evil.
I'm going to have to disagree about Christian fundamentalists being peaceful. Supporting war and hating gays isn't peaceful, among other things.
I was just pointing out that Christians fundamentalists aren't exactly peaceful, even if what they do isn't nearly as bad as some of the Muslim fundamentalists. However, Crusader here wants to be just as bad and go and kill the Muslims, and he's a Christian. Then again he's a lunatic too. :P
Yeah, but to be fair that goes ashy-pale in comparison. There's hurting peoples feelings and then there's that BTK stuff thing they've even been doing to their own in Iraq these days (aside from blowing up 'heathens') - hard thing to really put that on equal ground. Yeah, I definitely don't believe in the generalities a certain someone was spouting off but still, I really don't think christianity has nearly as many fangs left as people in the media or in activist groups really try to espouse at times.
:laugh: +1, QC.
I wrote a lengthy reply, defending the Qur'an. Thankfully, Firefox crashed. Instead of recreating what I wrote, let me just say that Lucifer's right. Don't feed the troll.
I already questioned the troll's dx, which means that this thread should be over, OK? :laugh:
Crusader should had the guts to express his or her's opinions without having to use a sock puppet. However I agree with some of the stuff Crusader is saying, we are pussyfooting the menance of fundamentalist islam, it is totally unlike christian fundamentalism which is fairly harmless. Christian fundamentalists want to peacefully impose their agenda via the democratic process, Islamic fundamentalists generally want to wage war on everybody who does not subscribe to their beliefs, very much like the Communists and Nazis.
I'm going to have to disagree about Christian fundamentalists being peaceful. Supporting war and hating gays isn't peaceful, among other things.
I'm going to have to disagree about Christian fundamentalists being peaceful. Supporting war and hating gays isn't peaceful, among other things.
They are where I live, I do not count protesting at gay pride parades as particularly violent. On the other hand our local Islamic fundamentalists can be a violent lot.
It seems to me that people who do that are either trying to provoke a response with shit they don't really mean,You act as if that was a bad thing :P
It seems to me that people who do that are either trying to provoke a response with shit they don't really mean,You act as if that was a bad thing :P
I have never used any 'Asperger' forum before.
I have never used any 'Asperger' forum before. All I know is that Islam should be strictly controlled just as drugs or tobacco should be. We can't allow this disease to spread anymore and damage our society.
I have never used any 'Asperger' forum before. All I know is that Islam should be strictly controlled just as drugs or tobacco should be. We can't allow this disease to spread anymore and damage our society.
we are NT bullies, no real ASD people here.I have never used any 'Asperger' forum before. All I know is that Islam should be strictly controlled just as drugs or tobacco should be. We can't allow this disease to spread anymore and damage our society.
Apart from the fact you've used this one before then?
we are NT bullies, no real ASD people here.I have never used any 'Asperger' forum before. All I know is that Islam should be strictly controlled just as drugs or tobacco should be. We can't allow this disease to spread anymore and damage our society.
Apart from the fact you've used this one before then?
anybody got a dx it must've come from aq quack!
lol
+1, lucifer, and fuck everyone else.
i said random +1 werer unacceptable. good posts merit positivity.
yes i pissed several people off and my kharma went way down.
lol
+1, lucifer, and fuck everyone else.
i said random +1 werer unacceptable. good posts merit positivity.
Was anyone arguing with you about that? ::)
lol
+1, lucifer, and fuck everyone else.
i said random +1 werer unacceptable. good posts merit positivity.
Was anyone arguing with you about that? ::)
I can do it if nobody else will:
McJagger, stop sucking up to Lucifer. People will think that you're soft.
lol
+1, lucifer, and fuck everyone else.
i said random +1 werer unacceptable. good posts merit positivity.
Was anyone arguing with you about that? ::)
I can do it if nobody else will:
McJagger, stop sucking up to Lucifer. People will think that you're soft.
have you been visited by the green monster?
I have never used any 'Asperger' forum before. All I know is that Islam should be strictly controlled just as drugs or tobacco should be. We can't allow this disease to spread anymore and damage our society.
Green monster=jealousy.
Oh, and I think Crusader should be the next victim of the Aspie Elite. >:D
Oh, and I think Crusader should be the next victim of the Aspie Elite. >:D
Green monster=jealousy.
Oh, and I think Crusader should be the next victim of the Aspie Elite. >:D
Are you feeling evil today QC?? :laugh:
Oh, and I think Crusader should be the next victim of the Aspie Elite. >:D
so do i!
c'mon, chaps - Bullies Of The Internet Unite!
oh. dear.
bullies of the internet = BOTI. i am about to start cracking up, any minu...
(http://www.smileyparadies.de/smilies/devil/teu94-001.gif)
I see someone else gave Lucifer karma at the same time I did. :laugh:
not i - i'm working tomorrow, so need an early night.
ta for the karma though - you remembered!  ;D
Green monster=jealousy.
Oh, and I think Crusader should be the next victim of the Aspie Elite. >:D
I have never used any 'Asperger' forum before. All I know is that Islam should be strictly controlled just as drugs or tobacco should be. We can't allow this disease to spread anymore and damage our society.
but i like drugs, they get me high!
Meh, I'm bored now. This guy is a one-trick pony. ::)
How can I be a one trick pony? I am a Christian knight, I ride only the finest of stallions mere mortal.
PCP, I have heard of this dangerous substance. Known as Angel Dust, it is meant to provide a nasty trip and give you permanent damage. Used by people in a pastime known as 'raving'.
anything it's said at all, really.
even the kiddos?
I'm really tempted to convert to Islam because of this twat.
this thread is chock full of NT naziism.
stupid fuckwit for saying that.
but i am the exception, aren't i?
stupid fuckwit for saying that.
but i am the exception, aren't i?
* Crusader runs on his horse swinging his holy ball and chain like no Viking beserker who came before, it's hits odeon and everyone else around him. They are pulverized in seconds. He cries "God Bless IntensitySquared".
How can I be a one trick pony? I am a Christian knight, I ride only the finest of stallions mere mortal.
PCP, I have heard of this dangerous substance. Known as Angel Dust, it is meant to provide a nasty trip and give you permanent damage. Used by people in a pastime known as 'raving'.
I've had enough in this world. Time to end it all, I'll bring you down with me
(http://www.ogrish.com/archives/2006/september/ogrish-dot-com-train_suicide_mexico_021158540195.jpg)
Sockpuppet account deleted, it seems. It would have been interesting to know who the coward behind the mask was...
This board is designed to allow guests to post and members to post anonymously.
right. who does odeon have to sleep with to find out who it is, please?
right. who does odeon have to sleep with to find out who it is, please?
Lol, not me - maybe Alex?
right. who does odeon have to sleep with to find out who it is, please?
Lol, not me - maybe Alex?
:'(
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to say "Hey, maybe Jessica Biel knows something" but I kinda doubt her involvement.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to say "Hey, maybe Jessica Biel knows something" but I kinda doubt her involvement.
i have never seen it before, and never want to see it again.
i think i will skip breakfast this morning.
diarrhoea, mcj. probably involving turmeric at some point, i'd say.
ahahahahahahaha. vomit porn rules!i guess he had her gag on his.
ahahahahahahaha. vomit porn rules!
Hey look Crusader, its the welcoming committee! I'm sure deep down, they're shitting their pants. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
(http://www.williamthrash.com/arabs-911-party-03.jpg)
Hey look Crusader, its the welcoming committee! I'm sure deep down, they're shitting their pants. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
(http://www.williamthrash.com/arabs-911-party-03.jpg)
They would be if the US or Israeli air force were bombing their homes and neighbourhoods.
after i learn proper grammar, i will set up a sockpuppet and troll. if i did it now, i would give myself away.
i think so!after i learn proper grammar, i will set up a sockpuppet and troll. if i did it now, i would give myself away.
Do you have what it takes to be a quality troll? :D
define "a quality troll"...
happeh. i'd agree wholeheartedly, but i shouldn't really, as i believe i was the one who drove him away, so modesty forbids. perhaps he was the warm-up for my later bullying extravaganzas.
happeh. i'd agree wholeheartedly, but i shouldn't really, as i believe i was the one who drove him away, so modesty forbids. perhaps he was the warm-up for my later bullying extravaganzas.
Go ahead, another one to be slaughtered in the name of Jesus! Choose them or us, there is no inbetween.
The Wronged needs YOU!!!
:bssign:
(we still don't have a "yawn" emoticon, do we?)
England is a secular country. Thank fuck.
England is effectively much more secular than the united states. They still have a church and shit, but they are far less serious about it than we are about our non-state religions.
Fuck off. :fingers: :wanker: :upyours: :bananas: :moon: :evillaugh: :bssign: :happypuke:
Nah. I can't be bothered - why the frig should I care what the Pope said? He's a fucking irrelevance. :mwhaha:
Fuck off. :fingers: :wanker: :upyours: :bananas: :moon: :evillaugh: :bssign: :happypuke:
The reply of an imbecil! A wolf stuck in the corner.
I quote from http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/research/churchcensus.htm
Nearly three-quarters of the English population was identified as Christian in the 2001 census of population.
England is majority Christian. Foreigners will abide by our culture and society or LEAVE without question.
What would happen if an English bishop went over to a main mosque in Arabia and did the same as Chaudry cuntface did here? They wouldn't put up with it, we should do the same here. But Labour have let so many Muslims into the country because they hate us, they're too scared. This country has gone to the dogs. We must rise and fight this evil.
Nominally Christian, bumface. Church attendance figures tell a very different story. Big difference. :fingers:
Mind of a racist shitbag. 'Nazicrusader'.
What's a bag egg?
And yeah, it is a fairly significant difference, as it suggests that most people don't give that much of a fuck really. :wanker:
And yeah, it is a fairly significant difference, as it suggests that most people don't give that much of a fuck really. :wanker:
1. Your not from this country to truely know
2. You haven't given me any facts or figures
Show's your uneducated, try doing that without references trick in an essay.
What if I am right about Islam? Then what I am saying is not a matter of "bigotry" or "hatred" at all, but a matter of self-preservation.
Making inferences about a person's mental state or "hateful" intentions before (or often just instead of) addressing their arguments is a totalitarian technique.
And yeah, it is a fairly significant difference, as it suggests that most people don't give that much of a fuck really. :wanker:
1. Your not from this country to truely know
2. You haven't given me any facts or figures
Show's your uneducated, try doing that without references trick in an essay.
1. I'm British.
2. I can't be bothered.
By the way, I'm a graduate, so that fucks up your theory. Fucked if I'm quoting sources contradicting bullshit spouted by someone who can't be arsed to post using his proper account even. :wallbutt:
Nein! I will not overcome my totalitarian nature! I insist that people stop being fucked up bigots NOW! Or else I'm converting to Islam to spite you.
It is only necessary that a person declares "La ilaha illallah, Muhammadun rasul Allah " with their lips and means it with all their heart for them to be Muslim. If this person you are telling us about has declared Shahadah with his lips and meant what he said from the bottom of his heart, then there can be no doubt that he is Muslim.
Just as an aside here, it is important for all of us, no matter how long we have been Muslim, to declare our Shahadah each day and to mean it with all our hearts each time we say it, in order for us to be good Muslims and to deserve the honor which Almighty Allah has bestowed on us.
Nein! I will not overcome my totalitarian nature! I insist that people stop being fucked up bigots NOW! Or else I'm converting to Islam to spite you.
Nein! I will not overcome my totalitarian nature! I insist that people stop being fucked up bigots NOW! Or else I'm converting to Islam to spite you.
If you do, I will have the police search your house roof to foundations leaving no stone unturned. All you Muslim friends houses will searched too at the slightest hint of any extremism. Even if nothing if found there will no apology whatsoever from them, and they will leave it in mess and not offer to tidy anything up.
Just look at this example of Muslims terrorising our country
Muslim-only Alton Towers
Need I say more. What would happen if Christians did that in Arabia? Muslims are primitive and backward.
It is only necessary that a person declares "La ilaha illallah, Muhammadun rasul Allah " with their lips and means it with all their heart for them to be Muslim. If this person you are telling us about has declared Shahadah with his lips and meant what he said from the bottom of his heart, then there can be no doubt that he is Muslim.
Just as an aside here, it is important for all of us, no matter how long we have been Muslim, to declare our Shahadah each day and to mean it with all our hearts each time we say it, in order for us to be good Muslims and to deserve the honor which Almighty Allah has bestowed on us.
Just look at this example of Muslims terrorising our country
Muslim-only Alton Towers
Blah, blah, tabloid bullshit, blah
Need I say more. What would happen if Christians did that in Arabia? Muslims are primitive and backward.
Just look at this example of Muslims terrorising our country
Muslim-only Alton Towers
Blah, blah, tabloid bullshit, blah
Need I say more. What would happen if Christians did that in Arabia? Muslims are primitive and backward.
Actually if they could guarentee enough ticket sales anyone could book an amusement park for the day- the people who own it only care about getting their money. As illustrated by the fact that Alton Towers cancelled the day when it became clear not enough tickets had been sold.
http://www.24dash.com/content/news/viewNews.php?navID=7&newsID=8785 (http://www.24dash.com/content/news/viewNews.php?navID=7&newsID=8785)
Beacause in a Christian country, nobody wants to go where Muslims wish to take over. Send them out on cruise liner into the Atlantic and sink it instead!
Just look at this example of Muslims terrorising our country
Muslim-only Alton Towers
Blah, blah, tabloid bullshit, blah
Need I say more. What would happen if Christians did that in Arabia? Muslims are primitive and backward.
Actually if they could guarentee enough ticket sales anyone could book an amusement park for the day- the people who own it only care about getting their money. As illustrated by the fact that Alton Towers cancelled the day when it became clear not enough tickets had been sold.
http://www.24dash.com/content/news/viewNews.php?navID=7&newsID=8785 (http://www.24dash.com/content/news/viewNews.php?navID=7&newsID=8785)
Beacause in a Christian country, nobody wants to go where Muslims wish to take over. Send them out on cruise liner into the Atlantic and sink it instead!
What an incredibly well thought-out and insightful response :clap: (we need a slow clap emoticon really).
I consider the person who started the christianity thread to be just as much of a troll as i consider the person who started the islam one. That is, not at all.
So you like polytheism? Or atheism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6SRGRshiSM
:laugh: Well that's just the most transparent and pathetic attempt to flame I've seen in quite a while.Nope; he's just telling it like it is.
You're a bit of a wanker on the quiet really, aren't you?
the number one boys name in the UK last year: Jack
the number two boys name and expected to be number one shortly: Mahammed.
the number one boys name in the UK last year: Jack
the number two boys name and expected to be number one shortly: Mahammed.
Not very imaginative, some Muslim families. There were usually two or three Mohammeds in my class at school. :laugh:
Lol, we know of one (chav) family which appears to have given all their kids car names or ones associated with racing - 'Xantia', 'Daytona', 'Ayrton (Senna)', etc etc. Good eh?
Lol, we know of one (chav) family which appears to have given all their kids car names or ones associated with racing - 'Xantia', 'Daytona', 'Ayrton (Senna)', etc etc. Good eh?
Lol, we know of one (chav) family which appears to have given all their kids car names or ones associated with racing - 'Xantia', 'Daytona', 'Ayrton (Senna)', etc etc. Good eh?
I absolutely LOVE racing and would never give my kids such stupid names.
Well, it's a cultural thing, too, as well as a religious one. It's considered a great honour to be named after the prophet.
If your name is Mohammed and you are a terrorist, it means you are not in the fold of the Islamic religion.
Every religion has its share of bad people.
There are fanatics of all religions. Islamic fanatics are usually dangerous in that some of them believe 60% of the world will die and everyone left will worship Allah. To call the entire religion fantatical and dangerous is not even logical. I have met some decent people who are followers of Islam. Every religion has its share of bad people. Generalizing to start a thread is seriously weak.
One of the n00b accounts is his sock puppet, perhaps...?
Now that I've bothered to read through the entirety of this thread, I have the following to say: I want that half hour of my life back . . . :-\
Now that I've bothered to read through the entirety of this thread, I have the following to say: I want that half hour of my life back . . . :-\
Now that I've bothered to read through the entirety of this thread, I have the following to say: I want that half hour of my life back . . . :-\
You are referring to the time it took you to write that post, right? :P
Now that I've bothered to read through the entirety of this thread, I have the following to say: I want that half hour of my life back . . . :-\
You are referring to the time it took you to write that post, right? :P
The post quoted in the quote of yours I'm quoting, or the one of the other thread that drained the server a bit?
All Religions are dangerous.
All Religions are dangerous.
Buddhism isn't.
All Religions are dangerous.
Buddhism isn't.
it is if you're a bowl of rice.
should be safe. although i dunno about saffron - all those orange robes...That makes them dangerous too.
Sorry, I didn't stop to consider that. How about pasta?degaoism is a danger to the pasta.
Actually the moderates do say more. A Google search should give you a few pertinent links.
Actually the moderates do say more. A Google search should give you a few pertinent links.
What moderates type on the internet in English is largely irrelevant.
Massive demonstrations in the street and follow up political action is what's needed.
Actually the moderates do say more. A Google search should give you a few pertinent links.
What moderates type on the internet in English is largely irrelevant.
Massive demonstrations in the street and follow up political action is what's needed.
Such as this one (http://www.voanews.com/content/french-muslims-protests-militant-islam-/2463985.html)?
Or this (http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/144759/thousands-of-german-muslims-protest-against-terrorism)
or maybe this (http://www.euronews.com/2014/09/17/muslims-set-to-protest-over-islamic-state-fear-mongering/)?
The fact is that nothing they do will change your mind. Isn't that right, Scrap? Don't you think it's more honest to simply admit that?
Most of the Muslims I have met going all the way back to when I was in college were pretty much just like everyone else. A couple were very religious but not like the loons you see on TV, but most were not particularly religious. That being said I met three who must have been some of the scariest people I have ever met they were refugees from Somalia I was supposed to train at work they started out kinda okay but quiet after a few days they started talking more telling me how they fought in various militias and the people they had killed all very casually like it was a good thing and no big deal :zombiefuck: They also talked about how they wanted to change the US to be more like were they were from going on and on how bad it was here. They also didn't like to work just bitch about having to and about how cold it was here. Thankfully they didn't last long
Most of the Muslims I have met going all the way back to when I was in college were pretty much just like everyone else. A couple were very religious but not like the loons you see on TV, but most were not particularly religious. That being said I met three who must have been some of the scariest people I have ever met they were refugees from Somalia I was supposed to train at work they started out kinda okay but quiet after a few days they started talking more telling me how they fought in various militias and the people they had killed all very casually like it was a good thing and no big deal :zombiefuck: They also talked about how they wanted to change the US to be more like were they were from going on and on how bad it was here. They also didn't like to work just bitch about having to and about how cold it was here. Thankfully they didn't last long
Well...that sounds like human nature re: those that were complaining, go back from whence they came perhaps? :apondering: just a thought... :yarly:
Such as this one (http://www.voanews.com/content/french-muslims-protests-militant-islam-/2463985.html)?
A few hundred out of 5 million Fench muslims. :wanker:QuoteOr this (http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/144759/thousands-of-german-muslims-protest-against-terrorism)
That's a good start, unfortunately it's still in Europe and mostly being done by Turks who are members of NATO and have much closer ties to Europe.Quoteor maybe this (http://www.euronews.com/2014/09/17/muslims-set-to-protest-over-islamic-state-fear-mongering/)?
That's talking about the same event.QuoteThe fact is that nothing they do will change your mind. Isn't that right, Scrap? Don't you think it's more honest to simply admit that?
No, that's how you roll.
If you want to impress me, show me demonstrations by 10's of thousands of Arabs in Saudi Arabia (or some other country where this Wahhabist crap comes from) denouncing Jihadists and the government responding with action.
Most of the Muslims I have met going all the way back to when I was in college were pretty much just like everyone else. A couple were very religious but not like the loons you see on TV, but most were not particularly religious. That being said I met three who must have been some of the scariest people I have ever met they were refugees from Somalia I was supposed to train at work they started out kinda okay but quiet after a few days they started talking more telling me how they fought in various militias and the people they had killed all very casually like it was a good thing and no big deal :zombiefuck: They also talked about how they wanted to change the US to be more like were they were from going on and on how bad it was here. They also didn't like to work just bitch about having to and about how cold it was here. Thankfully they didn't last long
The fact is that nothing I say will matter to you. You made up your bigoted mind long before you joined this place. It's why you wanted to Lit to comment on your Sweden video rather than others. You can only actually handle the people that agree with you.
There can be no discrimination because of race, color, creed, national origin, religious or political belief.
This is from the 10 guiding principles of this board. Found here (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,39.0.html).
There can be no discrimination because of race, color, creed, national origin, religious or political belief.Wondering if that was before the mission statement was put up, or if it means not discriminating against who can be a member here. McJagger doesn't live here anymore, so can't ask him his intent.
This is from the 10 guiding principles of this board. Found here (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,39.0.html).
I'd be inclined to make an exception for those who act as murderous psychopathic fucks, slavers, mysogynistic , childkilling, bible-kissing white-supremacists that indulge in mass murder for the BLATANTLY hypocritical hope of eternal salvation, and who worship a so-called 'christ' who's forebears shagged their sisters (yes, they did. Noah and his kids were the only people left after the flood. Do you think they used Tinder to get mates?)
Christianity from the start has been spread by butchery, slaving and the sword (recently too. Google "Srebrenica". Or read up on historic cotton production).. It is not a religion compatible with peace and humane treatment of others, rather it is an evil creed which belongs back in the stone age from whence it festered forth. We would all be better off without Christianity blighting the face of our planet.
There can be no discrimination because of race, color, creed, national origin, religious or political belief.Wondering if that was before the mission statement was put up, or if it means not discriminating against who can be a member here. McJagger doesn't live here anymore, so can't ask him his intent.
This is from the 10 guiding principles of this board. Found here (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,39.0.html).
I'd be inclined to make an exception for those who act as murderous psychopathic fucks, slavers, mysogynistic , childkilling, bible-kissing white-supremacists that indulge in mass murder for the BLATANTLY hypocritical hope of eternal salvation, and who worship a so-called 'christ' who's forebears shagged their sisters (yes, they did. Noah and his kids were the only people left after the flood. Do you think they used Tinder to get mates?)
Christianity from the start has been spread by butchery, slaving and the sword (recently too. Google "Srebrenica". Or read up on historic cotton production).. It is not a religion compatible with peace and humane treatment of others, rather it is an evil creed which belongs back in the stone age from whence it festered forth. We would all be better off without Christianity blighting the face of our planet.
Wise words, man. Wise words.
The Aisha thing? Most modern scholars put Aisha's age at marriage at 13, possibly later. And consumation at 15/16, possibly as high as 19. That's older than allowable in some US states today. But, you know. Whatever right?
.....That's older than allowable in some US states today. But, you know. Whatever right?
Where did that come from? Is that what I said? I must be a real jerk. Either that or you're one for putting that in my mouth. As for what actually occurs against me, racism can be covert and I used to struggle a lot with possibly imagining it occurring in instances when it might not really be. If someone is a bigot, would personally rather them blatant so I can be certain about it and say something, rather than not saying anything or guessing and possibly accusing them of crap they didn't say.There can be no discrimination because of race, color, creed, national origin, religious or political belief.Wondering if that was before the mission statement was put up, or if it means not discriminating against who can be a member here. McJagger doesn't live here anymore, so can't ask him his intent.
This is from the 10 guiding principles of this board. Found here (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,39.0.html).
Oh yeah. I get it. It's only classed as racism and discrimination if it actually occurs against "you". If it's against someone else you can't complain about it.
Where did that come from? Is that what I said? I must be a real jerk. Either that or you're one for putting that in my mouth. As for what actually occurs against me, racism can be covert and I used to struggle a lot with possibly imagining it occurring in instances when it might not really be. If someone is a bigot, would personally rather them blatant so I can be certain about it and say something, rather than not saying anything or guessing and possibly accusing them of crap they didn't say.There can be no discrimination because of race, color, creed, national origin, religious or political belief.Wondering if that was before the mission statement was put up, or if it means not discriminating against who can be a member here. McJagger doesn't live here anymore, so can't ask him his intent.
This is from the 10 guiding principles of this board. Found here (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,39.0.html).
Oh yeah. I get it. It's only classed as racism and discrimination if it actually occurs against "you". If it's against someone else you can't complain about it.
He called me a racist too. The Progressive position is to call anyone they disagree with a bigot of some stripe. It is a fun trick. It dehumanises and devalues the person, and invalidates whatever point they were opposing as morally wrong, and whilst not actually needing to counter any opposing views. All whilst maintaining an air of moral superiority.
Unlike you though I am special and have been patronaged by FourAce to argue some of my positions. Lord knows why? He really sucks at it and he obviously thinks I am a bigot too.
For what it is worth I do not think you a bigot nor have I seen you say anything approaching bigotry.
There can be no discrimination because of race, color, creed, national origin, religious or political belief.Wondering if that was before the mission statement was put up, or if it means not discriminating against who can be a member here. McJagger doesn't live here anymore, so can't ask him his intent.
This is from the 10 guiding principles of this board. Found here (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,39.0.html).
I'd be inclined to make an exception for those who act as murderous psychopathic fucks, slavers, mysogynistic , childkilling, bible-kissing white-supremacists that indulge in mass murder for the BLATANTLY hypocritical hope of eternal salvation, and who worship a so-called 'christ' who's forebears shagged their sisters (yes, they did. Noah and his kids were the only people left after the flood. Do you think they used Tinder to get mates?)
Christianity from the start has been spread by butchery, slaving and the sword (recently too. Google "Srebrenica". Or read up on historic cotton production).. It is not a religion compatible with peace and humane treatment of others, rather it is an evil creed which belongs back in the stone age from whence it festered forth. We would all be better off without Christianity blighting the face of our planet.
Wise words, man. Wise words.
The Aisha thing? Most modern scholars put Aisha's age at marriage at 13, possibly later. And consumation at 15/16, possibly as high as 19. That's older than allowable in some US states today. But, you know. Whatever right?
Facts right?
http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm
“It is reported from Aisha that she said: The Prophet entered into marriage with me when I was a girl of six … and at the time [of joining his household] I was a girl of nine years of age.”
“Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed [alone] for two years or so. He married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.” [3]
[3]. Bukhari, Book of Qualities of the Ansar, chapter: ‘The Holy Prophet’s marriage with Aisha, and his coming to Madina and the consummation of marriage with her’. For Muhsin Khan’s translation, see this link and go down to reports listed as Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 and 236......That's older than allowable in some US states today. But, you know. Whatever right?
What is an apologist?
But why limit this to Islam? http://www.nairaland.com/450419/age-marriage-medieval-times-paedophiliaWhile consent ages were low, it seems to be a misconception that such young marriages were commonplace. Young marriages were more likely to occur for women of high social status, but even then it wasn't the norm. The average age of first marriage for women in the US during the early 1700s was 19-22, and that hasn't changed much since then.
I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today. But then again, I'm not a racist so I'm not likely to understand.
But why limit this to Islam? http://www.nairaland.com/450419/age-marriage-medieval-times-paedophiliaWhile consent ages were low, it seems to be a misconception that such young marriages were commonplace. Young marriages were more likely to occur for women of high social status, but even then it wasn't the norm. The average age of first marriage for women in the US during the early 1700s was 19-22, and that hasn't changed much since then.
I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today. But then again, I'm not a racist so I'm not likely to understand.
There we go, like clockwork:
"I made a big claim about a girl getting married as a child and then having sex with her middle-aged husband before she hit puberty as wrong and how silly others were to believe this but then when someone pointed out that it was correct I shrink from this and call them racist to make myself look morally superior and thus discredit the factual underpinnings of what they said"
I get it.
The fact is I make NO argument in this about Islam at all (notwithstanding that Islam is not a race - ie is a Turkish Muslim the same race as a Filipino Muslim and the same race as a Muslim from Gambia and the same race as a Muslim from Iran?) I DO make an argument about whether you are trying to do som e history revisionism in this case and for whatever reasons of your own to green light the marrying of little girl and then having sex with her at 9.
Me? I think it is wrong no matter where it happens. I do not much care the culture or whether it was "in". In exactly the same way I do not think that brothers and sisters or close relative marrying and having sex with each other is cool. You may also with that say "It happened every or well the royal families practiced it a bit". Yes! It was bad then and bad now and every time it happened.
Was pedophilia okay if it happened a lot in Europe too? No. Was it better in Europe than in Middle Eastern countries? No. It history something to take into account? Not really.
Yet you call al of this racist. OKay if that is the definition of racist I earn it. You have earned the title of an apologist. We can both live with our titles and how we earned them, huh?
Good point, but was it really that common? Not really liking this source. The source provided for the middle ages is specifically about noble women, there's no source for the claims about the 12 being commonplace before 1200, and the 1600s section only discusses ages of consent.But why limit this to Islam? http://www.nairaland.com/450419/age-marriage-medieval-times-paedophiliaWhile consent ages were low, it seems to be a misconception that such young marriages were commonplace. Young marriages were more likely to occur for women of high social status, but even then it wasn't the norm. The average age of first marriage for women in the US during the early 1700s was 19-22, and that hasn't changed much since then.
Early 1700s was much later. This was way before there was a US.
He called me a racist too. The Progressive position is to call anyone they disagree with a bigot of some stripe. It is a fun trick. It dehumanises and devalues the person, and invalidates whatever point they were opposing as morally wrong, and whilst not actually needing to counter any opposing views. All whilst maintaining an air of moral superiority.
Unlike you though I am special and have been patronaged by FourAce to argue some of my positions. Lord knows why? He really sucks at it and he obviously thinks I am a bigot too.
For what it is worth I do not think you a bigot nor have I seen you say anything approaching bigotry.
Wow. It' a bit early in the discussion for you to play the victim card, isn't it? Have you forgotten all the times you follow on from all my posts with insults when you weren't even on my radar?
Did I hurt the little trolls feelings?
I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today. But then again, I'm not a racist so I'm not likely to understand.
There we go, like clockwork:
"I made a big claim about a girl getting married as a child and then having sex with her middle-aged husband before she hit puberty as wrong and how silly others were to believe this but then when someone pointed out that it was correct I shrink from this and call them racist to make myself look morally superior and thus discredit the factual underpinnings of what they said"
I get it.
The fact is I make NO argument in this about Islam at all (notwithstanding that Islam is not a race - ie is a Turkish Muslim the same race as a Filipino Muslim and the same race as a Muslim from Gambia and the same race as a Muslim from Iran?) I DO make an argument about whether you are trying to do som e history revisionism in this case and for whatever reasons of your own to green light the marrying of little girl and then having sex with her at 9.
Me? I think it is wrong no matter where it happens. I do not much care the culture or whether it was "in". In exactly the same way I do not think that brothers and sisters or close relative marrying and having sex with each other is cool. You may also with that say "It happened every or well the royal families practiced it a bit". Yes! It was bad then and bad now and every time it happened.
Was pedophilia okay if it happened a lot in Europe too? No. Was it better in Europe than in Middle Eastern countries? No. It history something to take into account? Not really.
Yet you call al of this racist. OKay if that is the definition of racist I earn it. You have earned the title of an apologist. We can both live with our titles and how we earned them, huh?
Al. You completely failed to get the point of my rather short post.
I'll try again.
"I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today."
Do you see how I used the quotes there?
At no time did I say it was OK. I said "I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today."
None of the words are particularly long so I'm not sure how you managed to read some other meaning into it.
But as I'said before, I'm not a racist so I sometimes don't quite follow the logic of racists.
I'd be inclined to make an exception for those who act as murderous psychopathic fucks, slavers, mysogynistic , childkilling, bible-kissing white-supremacists that indulge in mass murder for the BLATANTLY hypocritical hope of eternal salvation, and who worship a so-called 'christ' who's forebears shagged their sisters (yes, they did. Noah and his kids were the only people left after the flood. Do you think they used Tinder to get mates?)
Christianity from the start has been spread by butchery, slaving and the sword (recently too. Google "Srebrenica". Or read up on historic cotton production).. It is not a religion compatible with peace and humane treatment of others, rather it is an evil creed which belongs back in the stone age from whence it festered forth. We would all be better off without Christianity blighting the face of our planet.
Wise words, man. Wise words.
The Aisha thing? Most modern scholars put Aisha's age at marriage at 13, possibly later. And consumation at 15/16, possibly as high as 19. That's older than allowable in some US states today. But, you know. Whatever right?
Necrobumping for drama again, Scrap? Fucking wanker.
I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today.
But then again, I'm not a racist so I'm not likely to understand.
Good point, but was it really that common? Not really liking this source. The source provided for the middle ages is specifically about noble women, there's no source for the claims about the 12 being commonplace before 1200, and the 1600s section only discusses ages of consent.But why limit this to Islam? http://www.nairaland.com/450419/age-marriage-medieval-times-paedophiliaWhile consent ages were low, it seems to be a misconception that such young marriages were commonplace. Young marriages were more likely to occur for women of high social status, but even then it wasn't the norm. The average age of first marriage for women in the US during the early 1700s was 19-22, and that hasn't changed much since then.
Early 1700s was much later. This was way before there was a US.
I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today.
It's relevant because they're still stuck in those same cultural and moral values from the beginning of the iron age.QuoteBut then again, I'm not a racist so I'm not likely to understand.
Actually you are. You're engaged in the soft racism of low expectations.
In the gun thread, you expect white people (Americans), to modernize (to European expectations) and stick to your progressive values but those poor, discriminated against, sand niggers are just too dumb to figure out that fucking children is bad.
Quite the double standard.
I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today.
It's relevant because they're still stuck in those same cultural and moral values from the beginning of the iron age.QuoteBut then again, I'm not a racist so I'm not likely to understand.
Actually you are. You're engaged in the soft racism of low expectations.
In the gun thread, you expect white people (Americans), to modernize (to European expectations) and stick to your progressive values but those poor, discriminated against, sand niggers are just too dumb to figure out that fucking children is bad.
Quite the double standard.
I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today.
It's relevant because they're still stuck in those same cultural and moral values from the beginning of the iron age.QuoteBut then again, I'm not a racist so I'm not likely to understand.
Actually you are. You're engaged in the soft racism of low expectations.
In the gun thread, you expect white people (Americans), to modernize (to European expectations) and stick to your progressive values but those poor, discriminated against, sand niggers are just too dumb to figure out that fucking children is bad.
Quite the double standard.
So by the same standards you are to be judged by things the Christian world has done over he last 1500 years, or anything done by a white person? Does it work both ways? If not then you've just defined the word hypocrisy. (It means holding others to different standards than yourself.)
Bonus points for the Trumpist moral relativism though. It doesn't really work in arguments with adults but well done you.
I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today.
It's relevant because they're still stuck in those same cultural and moral values from the beginning of the iron age.QuoteBut then again, I'm not a racist so I'm not likely to understand.
Actually you are. You're engaged in the soft racism of low expectations.
In the gun thread, you expect white people (Americans), to modernize (to European expectations) and stick to your progressive values but those poor, discriminated against, sand niggers are just too dumb to figure out that fucking children is bad.
Quite the double standard.
So by the same standards you are to be judged by things the Christian world has done over he last 1500 years, or anything done by a white person? Does it work both ways? If not then you've just defined the word hypocrisy. (It means holding others to different standards than yourself.)
Bonus points for the Trumpist moral relativism though. It doesn't really work in arguments with adults but well done you.
D- for lack of reading comprehension.
I'm not talking about things that have been done in the past, my whole point was that although Christianity and Islam have done bad things and have had poor moral values, the western world has managed to grow up while the Islamic world remains stagnant.
Or are you just trying to be obtuse on purpose??
Oh I don't know, a handful? Say, three million? :autism:
*ducks back out of the thread because I really do not care about the argument, but could not resist the snark*
Correct, it's an easy jab. Was just thrown off by the article saying it was ever a common thing.Good point, but was it really that common? Not really liking this source. The source provided for the middle ages is specifically about noble women, there's no source for the claims about the 12 being commonplace before 1200, and the 1600s section only discusses ages of consent.But why limit this to Islam? http://www.nairaland.com/450419/age-marriage-medieval-times-paedophiliaWhile consent ages were low, it seems to be a misconception that such young marriages were commonplace. Young marriages were more likely to occur for women of high social status, but even then it wasn't the norm. The average age of first marriage for women in the US during the early 1700s was 19-22, and that hasn't changed much since then.
Early 1700s was much later. This was way before there was a US.
It was just an example, the result of a quick google search. My point is that marriages at a sometimes very young age was in no way unique to Mohammed or his time period but yet Muslims today are the only ones being judged by something that took place a thousand years ago.
Similarly hateful arguments could easily be constructed around Christians by leafing through the Bible: they are obviously all homophobic and vengeful misogynists.
Has anyone worked out yet that trying to combat violent extremism with bombs and stuff just creates more violent extremism.
Someone hazarded a guess further up the thread that about 0.3% of Muslims are extremists. You can try to kill all of those extremists and you might even take out a bit chunk of them along with a huge number of non-extremists. But in the process you will stir up enough hatred that you'll likely drag a chunk of the 99.7% of Muslims in the non-extremist camp into the extremist camp, and end up in a worse situation than you were in when you started.
Sound familiar?
Has anyone worked out yet that trying to combat violent extremism with bombs and stuff just creates more violent extremism.
Someone hazarded a guess further up the thread that about 0.3% of Muslims are extremists. You can try to kill all of those extremists and you might even take out a bit chunk of them along with a huge number of non-extremists. But in the process you will stir up enough hatred that you'll likely drag a chunk of the 99.7% of Muslims in the non-extremist camp into the extremist camp, and end up in a worse situation than you were in when you started.
Sound familiar?
Oh that is terrific logic there. I have a better idea. Let's take it to the next level.
Let all Muslims go unpoliced. Seriously who wants to risk being called a bigot, why not just exempt anyone who is Muslim of any of the laws that bind a community? I think any terrorist attacks or crimes of violence ought to be waved away. I do not think attacks like the one at Nice, France or at the Ariana Grande concert or in Brussels ought to be either investigated nor the perpetrators stopped. They will surely get bored eventually from killing people. You should not hurt them as they are trying to murder citizens because otherwise other Muslims may not like it and may call you a bigot.
Minister of Funny Walks logic is funny.
Oh that is terrific logic there. I have a better idea. Let's take it to the next level.
Let all Muslims go unpoliced. Seriously who wants to risk being called a bigot, why not just exempt anyone who is Muslim of any of the laws that bind a community? I think any terrorist attacks or crimes of violence ought to be waved away. I do not think attacks like the one at Nice, France or at the Ariana Grande concert or in Brussels ought to be either investigated nor the perpetrators stopped. They will surely get bored eventually from killing people. You should not hurt them as they are trying to murder citizens because otherwise other Muslims may not like it and may call you a bigot.
Minister of Funny Walks logic is funny.
You're getting remarkably close to the legal/illegal bomb thing again.
Britain has been a victim of bombings from at least IRA conflict. I remember there was a spate of them, including on a double decker bus, some years ago. I remember not long ago little kids were blown to bits in a popstar concert.
No this issue is not solved. There is not the same bombing instances or culture in UK.
We thankfully know that if we ban bombs and make them illegal there wont be any more bombings. That is what they shoyld do.
If they have done this, then we may have to reassess the notion that banning weapons that potentially causes death and/or controlling it will not prevebt bad people from doing bad things and ignoring illegaility.
Maybe preventative measures and better mental health services and such is better than banning weapons from decent people who would not abuse them and bad people who will any way?
Of course it may be reasonable to do a bit of both but I wonder whether goung to "ban them ban them" as people have a wont to do, is the reasonable course of action
Has anyone worked out yet that trying to combat violent extremism with bombs and stuff just creates more violent extremism.
Someone hazarded a guess further up the thread that about 0.3% of Muslims are extremists. You can try to kill all of those extremists and you might even take out a bit chunk of them along with a huge number of non-extremists. But in the process you will stir up enough hatred that you'll likely drag a chunk of the 99.7% of Muslims in the non-extremist camp into the extremist camp, and end up in a worse situation than you were in when you started.
Sound familiar?
Oh that is terrific logic there. I have a better idea. Let's take it to the next level.
Let all Muslims go unpoliced. Seriously who wants to risk being called a bigot, why not just exempt anyone who is Muslim of any of the laws that bind a community? I think any terrorist attacks or crimes of violence ought to be waved away. I do not think attacks like the one at Nice, France or at the Ariana Grande concert or in Brussels ought to be either investigated nor the perpetrators stopped. They will surely get bored eventually from killing people. You should not hurt them as they are trying to murder citizens because otherwise other Muslims may not like it and may call you a bigot.
Minister of Funny Walks logic is funny.
Has anyone worked out yet that trying to combat violent extremism with bombs and stuff just creates more violent extremism.
Someone hazarded a guess further up the thread that about 0.3% of Muslims are extremists. You can try to kill all of those extremists and you might even take out a bit chunk of them along with a huge number of non-extremists. But in the process you will stir up enough hatred that you'll likely drag a chunk of the 99.7% of Muslims in the non-extremist camp into the extremist camp, and end up in a worse situation than you were in when you started.
Sound familiar?
Oh that is terrific logic there. I have a better idea. Let's take it to the next level.
Let all Muslims go unpoliced. Seriously who wants to risk being called a bigot, why not just exempt anyone who is Muslim of any of the laws that bind a community? I think any terrorist attacks or crimes of violence ought to be waved away. I do not think attacks like the one at Nice, France or at the Ariana Grande concert or in Brussels ought to be either investigated nor the perpetrators stopped. They will surely get bored eventually from killing people. You should not hurt them as they are trying to murder citizens because otherwise other Muslims may not like it and may call you a bigot.
Minister of Funny Walks logic is funny.
Nice straw man there. That's almost a next-level straw man. Impressive.
Here's how you take it to the next level. Figure out what feeds extremism, and what starves extremism. Use that as the starting point for your next course of action.
In the next lesson I may be gracious enough to expand upon that. Or I might just try to counter your lack of argument by imagining some ridiculous extrapolation of your comments. At this stage I am undecided. Stay tuned.
Quite, which is why I'm going to suggest everybody abandon hope of odeon's rehabilitation. Really, it's his own suggestion, to quote 'bigots will be bigots', after all.
Someone hazarded a guess further up the thread that about 0.3% of Muslims are extremists.
The bigot, making the accusation of bigotry.
The irony.
Junkies' actions always have consequences to others but it's something they tend not to understand or want to understand. Addiction is a powerful motivator for hiding your head in the sand.
It's kind of a cheap trick to throw in autism in your post, don't you think? Where's the relevance, apart form this particular junkie being a spazz?
Junkies' actions always have consequences to others but it's something they tend not to understand or want to understand. Addiction is a powerful motivator for hiding your head in the sand.Tend to not view pain management patients as junkies, because usage didn't begin as a lifestyle choice and it seems heartless to bash on someone who has a legitimate prescription for pain. Though from a removed acquaintance perspective it's more difficult to have genuine compassion about it. Have lost two work team members to long term pain management. It's true they caused problems for the entire department. They were nice people with a good work ethic, but the job is too demanding and detailed for someone constantly in a fog. With one, personally was assigned the task of destroying them, daily audits of their work and compiling a log of all their errors to be used as ammunition for grounds for firing. With the other, someone else was assigned the role of back stabber.
Junkies' actions always have consequences to others but it's something they tend not to understand or want to understand. Addiction is a powerful motivator for hiding your head in the sand.
It's kind of a cheap trick to throw in autism in your post, don't you think? Where's the relevance, apart form this particular junkie being a spazz?
Well not wanting to start anything here as well I will say a few things.
Firstly, Lestat is a big boy and not likely to be that concerned as to what a Middle Aged Australian thinks of him nor for that matter a Middle Age Swedish man. Whatever impact you or I may think we have on him is likely lost because it is just a forum and calling him names is simply sticks and stones.
Secondly, neither you nor I really understand his usage of drugs or how problematic it is and whilst we can make any base assumptions on that it is not divine truth and I do not think such proclamations ought to be seen as such.
Thirdly, with respect to drugs or any proclivities of ANY member, we do not know what we do not know. You drink ale and I drink bourbon. Do we ever drink in excess? The answer is obvious. Are either of us problem drinkers. I will tell you I am not and you may or may not believe that. You may say the same and I may or may not believe that too. Same goes for any member. Do either of us or anyone else here use alcohol to dull the edges after a grueling week? Are any of us here driven to drinking through the week? Any of us here is desperate need of AA? Again, I don't know? What we do know about members here, even very active long term members pales in comparison to what we don't know. Pretending we know more is what it is. Trading insults and barbs are run of the mill here and I do not dislike it even.
What we do know is we are all Autistic...or at least to be here and owning it makes it likely.
By all means, I am not going to stop you firing off at him or visa versa. It is nothing less than what has been done before with Lestat and MLA. More of the same. I am just trying to add a little levity and absurdity. I can wear failure in such attempts.
Junkies' actions always have consequences to others but it's something they tend not to understand or want to understand. Addiction is a powerful motivator for hiding your head in the sand.Tend to not view pain management patients as junkies, because usage didn't begin as a lifestyle choice and it seems heartless to bash on someone who has a legitimate prescription for pain. Though from a removed acquaintance perspective it's more difficult to have genuine compassion about it. Have lost two work team members to long term pain management. It's true they caused problems for the entire department. They were nice people with a good work ethic, but the job is too demanding and detailed for someone constantly in a fog. With one, personally was assigned the task of destroying them, daily audits of their work and compiling a log of all their errors to be used as ammunition for grounds for firing. With the other, someone else was assigned the role of back stabber.
As for Scrap's sig, his intent with it perfectly obvious to most people here.
As for Scrap's sig, his intent with it perfectly obvious to most people here.
Yeah, he shouldn't talk about your momma like that if he doesn't even know her. I've never met your momma either, the line was too long. :zoinks:
Quite. And especially, if he is somehow insulted by somebody speaking of their own mother (I didn't see scrap name odeon in any way, so any insult odeon chooses to take is of his own choice, if he chooses to see an implication in it, but what is said about one party is said about one party. What odeon chooses to take from it is his business. I'm not stupid of course, and I can guess what might just be being thought, but I should have thought what somebody guesses somebody else might be thinking about a third party just a LITTLE bit too tenuous for the ISP to give a tinker's twat mushroom over)
Too bad for scrap's mom, living in a shithole like that, her cunt must have icicles growing off her ugly little mushroom infested minge. Bet the punters don't come back for seconds (assuming they haven't died off of some nasty strain of uber-gonorrhea or bled to death after the ugly ol' bitch's inner vaginal jaws bit their member off or else their bladder exploded after blockage from a sharp icicle....)
Wonder what the congenital deformity rate is round there? sky high I should imagine.
Just look for the kids that have looks that say 'my mother was an ugly diseased swedish whore with the looks of a moray eel and my dad was a venus flytrap-cum-hobo'
Either that, or there is likely to be a public state of panic as a result of mass hysteria about the children of Cthulhuwhorenborgen, deep ones, and something about the eating of souls in the hope of acquiring one, given that the progeny would have nothing of the sort in their lineage, the poor, ugly diseased moray eel-looking whore-spawn. I pity the bastards, even if the earth would be better off were they rounded up and the flamethrowers passed round among those with at least sufficient human blood not to have significant plasma levels of haemocyanin. (its a copper based oxygen transport protein common amongst mollusks of various kinds)
(and ever seen those eels? just like those ugly little cancerous growt....I mean...progeny..sorry, my mistake, an all too easy one to make, eh scrap? I'm guessing you must have gotten....is lucky the right word to be applied, to one adopted by a moray eel-cunted diseased slag with a cunt like a freezer stuck in a deep oceanic trench? well at least it was an adoption rather than a 9-month defaecation, thank hell for small mercies [if I were to invoke heaven in that case, I'd probably get either sued for defamation of character, or raped by an angel that got really pissed off at the association with something that crawled out of the decaying arse ring of a rotting heap of tubeworm-infested festering blubber which at one point might just have been a whale carcass.]
Wonder just how they survived the pressure changes, slithering up out of the ooze and up through 7-10km of water. Well water and rotting whale shit and pus, and fish with glass looking teeth that look as though they were grown for the express purpose of removing their own eyeballs if they get hungry enough down there in fuckup central.
So...who wants their dick sucked? no need for the five pence tip, feed the old slapper a handful of shrimp and she'll be happy for a year. Because lookie here...I DOX'ed the bitch and found her modeling portfolio, complete with a gob full of pressure-coagulated frozen jizm. Any takers?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSoyzQ_UXqFzYwgPrErur-klZbZPVQqZaWtlbVUJCpSwmeCrxKb3Q)
And aren't the kids just adorable \/ \/ \/
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQFqZgfSNC2lMkxqIB9kudqzoDKD-PFaY81I0fir-QstFX9uCf6hg)
Quite. And especially, if he is somehow insulted by somebody speaking of their own mother (I didn't see scrap name odeon in any way, so any insult odeon chooses to take is of his own choice, if he chooses to see an implication in it, but what is said about one party is said about one party. What odeon chooses to take from it is his business. I'm not stupid of course, and I can guess what might just be being thought, but I should have thought what somebody guesses somebody else might be thinking about a third party just a LITTLE bit too tenuous for the ISP to give a tinker's twat mushroom over)
Too bad for scrap's mom, living in a shithole like that, her cunt must have icicles growing off her ugly little mushroom infested minge. Bet the punters don't come back for seconds (assuming they haven't died off of some nasty strain of uber-gonorrhea or bled to death after the ugly ol' bitch's inner vaginal jaws bit their member off or else their bladder exploded after blockage from a sharp icicle....)
Wonder what the congenital deformity rate is round there? sky high I should imagine.
Just look for the kids that have looks that say 'my mother was an ugly diseased swedish whore with the looks of a moray eel and my dad was a venus flytrap-cum-hobo'
Either that, or there is likely to be a public state of panic as a result of mass hysteria about the children of Cthulhuwhorenborgen, deep ones, and something about the eating of souls in the hope of acquiring one, given that the progeny would have nothing of the sort in their lineage, the poor, ugly diseased moray eel-looking whore-spawn. I pity the bastards, even if the earth would be better off were they rounded up and the flamethrowers passed round among those with at least sufficient human blood not to have significant plasma levels of haemocyanin. (its a copper based oxygen transport protein common amongst mollusks of various kinds)
(and ever seen those eels? just like those ugly little cancerous growt....I mean...progeny..sorry, my mistake, an all too easy one to make, eh scrap? I'm guessing you must have gotten....is lucky the right word to be applied, to one adopted by a moray eel-cunted diseased slag with a cunt like a freezer stuck in a deep oceanic trench? well at least it was an adoption rather than a 9-month defaecation, thank hell for small mercies [if I were to invoke heaven in that case, I'd probably get either sued for defamation of character, or raped by an angel that got really pissed off at the association with something that crawled out of the decaying arse ring of a rotting heap of tubeworm-infested festering blubber which at one point might just have been a whale carcass.]
Wonder just how they survived the pressure changes, slithering up out of the ooze and up through 7-10km of water. Well water and rotting whale shit and pus, and fish with glass looking teeth that look as though they were grown for the express purpose of removing their own eyeballs if they get hungry enough down there in fuckup central.
So...who wants their dick sucked? no need for the five pence tip, feed the old slapper a handful of shrimp and she'll be happy for a year. Because lookie here...I DOX'ed the bitch and found her modeling portfolio, complete with a gob full of pressure-coagulated frozen jizm. Any takers?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSoyzQ_UXqFzYwgPrErur-klZbZPVQqZaWtlbVUJCpSwmeCrxKb3Q)
And aren't the kids just adorable \/ \/ \/
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQFqZgfSNC2lMkxqIB9kudqzoDKD-PFaY81I0fir-QstFX9uCf6hg)
.......and this is your brain on drugs.
I am just pleased that I have not a pathway into your mind
I am just pleased that I have not a pathway into your mind
I understand you perfectly. It's wasn't that difficult to accomplish.
To me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue.
I am just pleased that I have not a pathway into your mind
I understand you perfectly. It's wasn't that difficult to accomplish.
You really don'tQuoteTo me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue.
This is point in case.
You were confused on this point and one of many. I tried harder than I ought to in hammering very simple points. A lot you admitted not to reading. Yet you have an understanding? Do not flatter yourself.
My point was rather simple. Bad people do bad things and good people tend not to. Being that you have a society (America) with Constitutional and cultural resistance at its very core, to stymie the kind of gun control that people like you propose AND such measures get smashed in the Congress House of Representatives whenever they are suggested.....gun control is not the way. The way is to limit BAD people NOT good people from having guns. Before you start, this is bare bones remedial and it is slightly more nuanced. When I say "bad people" I do not mean only BAD people do BAD things. Mentally ill people are not necessarily bad, and sometimes otherwise good people do bad things.
If you cannot push gun control laws with any success (and it would be beyond ridiculous to think at this point it is any more than ideological virtue signaling) what could be done? It would be good to better enforce laws America has. Do not let gun violence in organised guns to flourish unchecked and disarm those that have no legal right to have guns they may possess. Do not let people slip through the cracks of background checks or the like. When people are mentally ill, remove their guns and do not let them easily obtain what was removed from them.
Will methods like this stop it entirely? No. As we see with bombs, any bad person with the right mindset will do bad things whether illegal or illegal, banned or unbanned, controlled or not controlled, BUT it will reduce incidences and that is the point.
I am just pleased that I have not a pathway into your mind
I understand you perfectly. It's wasn't that difficult to accomplish.
You really don'tQuoteTo me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue.
This is point in case.
You were confused on this point and one of many. I tried harder than I ought to in hammering very simple points. A lot you admitted not to reading. Yet you have an understanding? Do not flatter yourself.
My point was rather simple. Bad people do bad things and good people tend not to. Being that you have a society (America) with Constitutional and cultural resistance at its very core, to stymie the kind of gun control that people like you propose AND such measures get smashed in the Congress House of Representatives whenever they are suggested.....gun control is not the way. The way is to limit BAD people NOT good people from having guns. Before you start, this is bare bones remedial and it is slightly more nuanced. When I say "bad people" I do not mean only BAD people do BAD things. Mentally ill people are not necessarily bad, and sometimes otherwise good people do bad things.
If you cannot push gun control laws with any success (and it would be beyond ridiculous to think at this point it is any more than ideological virtue signaling) what could be done? It would be good to better enforce laws America has. Do not let gun violence in organised guns to flourish unchecked and disarm those that have no legal right to have guns they may possess. Do not let people slip through the cracks of background checks or the like. When people are mentally ill, remove their guns and do not let them easily obtain what was removed from them.
Will methods like this stop it entirely? No. As we see with bombs, any bad person with the right mindset will do bad things whether illegal or illegal, banned or unbanned, controlled or not controlled, BUT it will reduce incidences and that is the point.
Read and understood. You are saying that bombs are illegal and people still use bombs therefore gun control will not help the completely different situation of gun violence because mentally ill people can do bad things even though they may not be bad.
But once again.... Why will gun control not reduce the rate of gun violence? Posting anything other than your long winding opinion will help prove your case.
You may not buy the cultural obstacles, but they're there. The country - especially the more conservative parts of it - does not have a long history. It's not that many generations removed from the Wild West.
Exactly. The Aussies can change, yet their country is as young as the US.
Who's "they"?
And seriously, are you saying that Americans cannot change? Why is it that they can get rid of other cultural issues that clearly aren't part of any modern society but not the one that is costing them tens of thousands of lives yearly?
The USA does seem to be falling behind in the movement to get rid of outdated cultural issues. Australia finally got nationwide same sex marriage and the USA is still squabbling on a state by state basis. There's the healthcare debacle where it stands out (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/mapped-the-best-and-worst-countries-for-gender-equality/) among first world nations. It doesn't do too hot on gender equality (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/mapped-the-best-and-worst-countries-for-gender-equality/), though according to this graph Australia doesn't seem to be doing too much better.
The puritan roots run deep.
Having just read Al's view on Israel, I find his views here strikingly similar. It seems to me they can be summarised thusly: It's hopeless, people can't change, no point in trying.
I don't buy that at all.
Yes, but that's only one small part of the picture. You've zeroed in here on it being about women vs men, but that's only one part of the dynamic. A few posts ago it was about whether cultures can change in general. And they do - civilizations have been rising and falling since the dawn of humanity. Sometimes they fall because of war, sometimes because of economic reasons, it varies. Though first-world society today loves to see itself as more progressive and morally enlightened than any culture in the past, there are pockets of culture far in the past that adopted values more "progressive" than what we have today.
Instead of looking at whether women need to take on more physically strenuous jobs to have equality, what about mechanical automation? Women did used to have more strenuous jobs, in the days before washing machines and microwaves, and the times when being a house-maid was common and precluded the possibility of starting your own family.
Physically strenuous jobs don't account for the majority of the pay gap, either. It's the leadership positions that cover that. One CEO makes more than a fuckton of blue collar laborers, and boardrooms are still mostly white guys.
One analysis found a huge advantage to investing in Fortune 1000 companies with female CEOs: A potential return of 348 percent, nearly triple the gain of Standard & Poor's 500 companies.43 Another analysis found that during the downturn of 2007–09, U.S. corporations with women on their boards performed better, partly because of lower debt levels. Profit growth averaged 14 percent over six years, compared with 10 percent for companies with all-male boards, according to the Credit Suisse study.44 Companies with women in senior posts or on boards also have fewer governance-related scandals including bribery, corruption and fraud.
You're assuming that the majority of people in those top leadership positions rise through middle management first... are you sure that's accurate? There are just as many gender problems in the Silicon Valley startup culture, if not more, than there are in large companies. Men are far more likely to get funding for startups than women.
But let's include the other minorities too. If it's primarily an issue of choice, why are there not more male immigrant CEO's? Arguments about taking time off to raise a family wouldn't apply to them.
It's true that there's a drop-off around the level of middle management for women. The articles I'm finding point to more reasons than the family issue. According to this study (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/st_2015-01-14_women-leadership-3-04/) which separates the responses of men and women, time for family is only #3 - in the responses of both genders. #1 and 2 are women being held to higher standards, and the bullshit response of companies "not being ready to" promote more women. There are issues with women being segregated (yes, partially by choice, it's not about pointing fingers) into departments like HR which are unlikely to promote from head of department to an executive position. People who get promoted to executive leadership have a broader range experience than that.
Yeah, the psychopath factor is a thing too. Represented in some of these articles (http://businessresearcher.sagepub.com/sbr-1645-95535-2666211/20150427/women-in-top-management) by "men not recognizing women's differing leadership style", which I think is coming at the same phenomenon from a different angle. But it's not actually backed up by profit results.QuoteOne analysis found a huge advantage to investing in Fortune 1000 companies with female CEOs: A potential return of 348 percent, nearly triple the gain of Standard & Poor's 500 companies.43 Another analysis found that during the downturn of 2007–09, U.S. corporations with women on their boards performed better, partly because of lower debt levels. Profit growth averaged 14 percent over six years, compared with 10 percent for companies with all-male boards, according to the Credit Suisse study.44 Companies with women in senior posts or on boards also have fewer governance-related scandals including bribery, corruption and fraud.
None of this I find the least bit objectionable. I personally am reasonably risk averse and nor would I give up my life to work any more than the unpaid overtime I put in already.
The only thing I find objectionable is that when grown adults make informed choices that this is now used as a blunt instrument to beat a narrative about inequality. Everyone has equality of choice not equality of outcome and with every choice comes rewards and disadvantages. If women through informed and honest choice do get some tangible benefits and more balance and less stress and less risk...I say that is a good choice for them BUT that comes with forgoing extra pay. Men, if they choose these positions with extra pay, have no reason to then complain that they have no freedom and balance.
None of this I find the least bit objectionable. I personally am reasonably risk averse and nor would I give up my life to work any more than the unpaid overtime I put in already.
If it's unpaid it's probably not affecting the surveys. :PThe only thing I find objectionable is that when grown adults make informed choices that this is now used as a blunt instrument to beat a narrative about inequality. Everyone has equality of choice not equality of outcome and with every choice comes rewards and disadvantages. If women through informed and honest choice do get some tangible benefits and more balance and less stress and less risk...I say that is a good choice for them BUT that comes with forgoing extra pay. Men, if they choose these positions with extra pay, have no reason to then complain that they have no freedom and balance.
Ok that's a really good point. I did see a lot of calls in these articles for quotas, but I don't think that's the best answer.
One thing that's happening in this part of the world is paternity leave is becoming more of an equal thing. Women are still guaranteed a set amount of time off for dealing with the physical repercussions of pregnancy, but beyond that, there is a specified amount of time which can be split among the spouses however they choose. Giving men more freedom if they do want to choose family. I still hear guys ribbing each other at work about how much paternity leave they took - haven't heard that directed at a woman yet - but it does lay some groundwork for culture change.
That was either the gullibility meter or the dishonesty meter breaking, folks.