STM, you must be pretty fucking dense and insecure if you think that I'm trying to say all Muslims are bad. That is the only response you have to my argument. I'm not talking about Muslims here, you mongoloid, I'm talking about Islam

I can assure you that I am far more functional than Crashpunk.

Lol, please enlighten me then, give me some fucking proof of your accusations against Islam, because all you're doing right now is making blanket statements, you cunt.

Whose videos got millions of views and is therefore pretty popular in Muslim internet community

Edit: Damn, STM edited his post.

Mongoloid is a whole race. I am 1/3 Mongoloid.
My Boyfriend is not Mongoloid. He is Caucasian/Semitic.

"Chaps", please do your own thread about islam.

Jesus Christ, you are a dense, dense motherfucker. I'm talking about how shitty a particular book is, but your mind immediately jumps to "racism" because you don't know how to actually argue.

It's still one person, and you're confusing "watching a video" with "agreeing with the opinions in a video".

Fuck, you and Nepsotic are like Dumb and fucking blanket statement, covert racist Dumber.

The video has majority of likes.

Yay, let's use buzzwords to shut down discussion! ^O^

No interpretation allowed, then.


This entire argument is based around me saying:
And then you and Varrok arguing against this. If we’re arguing the same point then you can agree that not all interpretations of Islam are bad, and therefore not all Muslims are bad.

But instead I’ve been told that all religion is hostile, and that differing interpretations has little bearing on that.

Can you not see how there is a difference between saying:

• That an entire religion is hostile

and

• That specific interpretations of a religion are hostile?

One of these statements is a blanket accusation against all followers of that religion, the other acknowledges that some followers of the religion are hostile and others are not. Which do you agree with, because so far all I’ve heard in this thread are arguments in favor of the first?


Sure, I forgot that you just hate everyone regardless of reason.

You're right, Varrok; what a fantastic quantifier.

Everyone knows Youtube is a fertile ground for positive thinking, right Nep?

So, people who like a video about views don't do that because they agree? I'm confused.

I'm still waiting for you to give an interpretation of that quote that isn't hostile. Convince me, because avoiding it makes me think you're losing the argument.

Manco, I'm not talking about Muslims whatsoever. I've known loads of nice Muslims and saying that all of them are bad is utterly retarded, the thing is, it's not that they're interpreting the Quran in their own way, they're just not following it like a "true" Muslim should. What is a "true" Muslim? Somebody who follows it to a tee, according to the book itself, and the book is what they follow.

Exactly, I hate everyone equally, besides myself who I hate slightly less.

That's some edgy proto-Nihilistic shit right there.

You mean this I assume:
For a start you didn’t get the quote right, it’s actually:
But the interpretation is pretty simple – the Bible was written many hundreds of years ago when there was significant cultural revulsion against homosexuality. Most modern Christians will be able to acknowledge that much of what is written in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, was based on cultural views that have largely died off in modern society. Thus, by viewing these rules in the correct historical context, they can realize that following them would not be in line with modern morality.

Of course, there are still Christians who are intolerant of homosexuality, and they still use this line to justify that intolerance as part of their religion. This is another interpretation.

Written work is not currency, you do not adapt it for current society by saying "eh, I can ASSUME they meant this". It's a product of it's time, nobody is denying that,but it says what it says and it says it pretty clearly. Protonihilist should be my CT.

A Muslim is a follower of Islam. If you’re making statements about Islam then you are by extension making statements about its followers. You can either accept that with multiple interpretations of Islam come multiple denominations of Muslim, or you can tar them all with the same brush.

And if you’re going to start trying to tell me about “true” Muslims then while you’re at it can you also tell me what a true Scotsman is while you’re at it?


Yes, you do adapt it in that way. You can acknowledge that it was a product of its time and focus on the other aspects of the text that stand up to modern morality.

I’m not denying what it says, I’m pointing out that followers are free to interpret it how they choose.

Oh, I'm not arguing that that isn't a true Scotsmen fallacy, I'm just telling you what the book says.

Yeah I'll give you that, what I should have said was "most Muslims in the middle east do not adapt it in that way". They just take it as it is, and I'm saying that as it is, it's a reprehensible piece of garbage.

They are, but the ones doing all the worst shit are not doing that, they are, like I said, taking it at face value.

You're confusing a western media washed perception of the Middle East with normal Middle Eastern people.

Also, again, the majority of Muslims are not like the clerical elite. They don't all believe in lopping someone's arm off for stealing.

For someone who likes to pull the misogyny card a lot, I'd have thought you would agree with me on this, considering the middle east is a place where there is actual misogyny, where women live under an actual patriarchy.

Is the Quran itself media washed? I don't think it is.

Again, you think I'm talking about the people. I'm not, I'm talking about the book. How anyone can try to argue against the fact that it is a shitty book full of vile ideas is pretty fucking despicable.

It was a paraphrase, just as the one you quoted. You should've known that.

That would be a good argument if only moral relativism didn't contradict with objective morals sent down by god. A practicing christian can't believe in moral relativism that stands in contradiction with the foundation of his religion.

If you make a statement about a kidnapper, do you automatically make statements about people kidnapped by the person?

Don't get me wrong, the Sharia laws of some Islamic nations are fucking abysmal and abhorrent. The way women are treated in places like Saudi Arabia is fucking wrong and there's no argument for that. However, Sharia law is developed by the conservative clergy and enforced by a hard-line, terrifying religious secret police, not the majority population.

I am just going to suggest--tentatively--that you have not read enough of the Quran to form a weighty opinion on it.

How much of the Quran have you read? Why do you feel the need to defend it to such an extent? Is it because the rhetoric that I'm racist is a simpler conclusion?

STM is impersonating FA, you fools.

You're wrong. I believe they are the same person.

sorry stm that was actually probably too far

I don't defend the Quran, I've read very little. That is why I don't make accusations about it, or the text within.

Look dude, I'm sure you're not racist. Fuck me though you make these broad generalisations and it's very hard not to put two and two together. You need to just relax and realise that not everyone that's different from you is out to destroy the world. Try to see the best in people.

Criticising a book of ideas is not making a broad generalisation whatsoever. Maybe if I was talking about all religion, then sure, but it's a pretty laughable argument to make otherwise.

And I'm supposed to be the one making generalisations here?

Where's the generalisation in that?

After all, STM and Nepsotic are Sanders supporters so why can't they get along?