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?

Wrong word, but it's a pretty uneducated guess. I may be a miserable person but that doesn't mean I'm afraid of change or people who are different. On the contrary, actually.

Edit:
I just hate the smelly brown people too much.

I always think religion gives bad people an excuse to justify doing bad things. My girlfriend's old boss was a Jain. Jainism is one of the most peaceful, kind religions in the world but she was a cruel, manipulative vindictive bitch; religion played no part in that obviously.

Well obviously. There are good and bad atheists and theists, thing is, religion justifies ignorance and like you said, doing bad things.

If it's so peaceful why does it use a Nazi symbol, eh?

*obvious bait is obvious*

But then that's all down to individual's interpretations of said religion, I think that's part of Manco's point.

e: speedy cunt

And my point was that the book itself is full of disgusting ideas. People can interpret them how they want to, but it's pretty clear that they are bad ideas.

So Here's the report on the Christian identity movement , a generalized denomination of Christian who can't play ball and are willfully stirring up trouble.

Here's a report (with a simple to read pie graph) illustrating that violence from the Mexican cartels is almost eight times as severe as that of Islamic terrorism. This is a somewhat dated report, but it's consistent.

And finally, there's the fact that a Christian group was able to get organized to take over a wildlife reserve, when there is not a chance in hell that the same thing would have happened with a Muslim (or let's face it: Non-white) organization. They would have been stomped into the dust. Christian groups are aimless, angry and well armed.

I don't feel threatened by either. I live in rural Ontario, we haven't even seen a real shooting. Last week a guy fired off a few shots in a school to distract the cops while he robbed a bank, but he was just greedy and nefarious. Religious Radicalism isn't my problem.

@ Nep and yet the vast majority of proponents of these religions don't follow the bad ideas. You can invalidate the books all you like, people get by just fine with socially conscious interpretations of religion and your bad attitude isn't going to change that.

On a side note, Varrok: don't forget STM is your leader.

Mac, I'm purely talking about the books, that was the whole point.

So you acknowledge trying to paint one group as “true” Muslims is a bad argument? OK.


I’ll admit that I don’t know much about how Islam is practiced and enforced in the Middle East, but I can accept that this is a more rational argument than you’ve previously been making. I don’t know if I’d agree with it, but it’s less antagonistic toward Muslims as a whole.


I’d argue that the worst offenders are specifically cherry-picking the text in a way to justify their violent and intolerant behavior, but I think we’re closer to the same page now on this.


You want to argue semantics? You put quotation marks around it, implying it to be a direct quotation. And the quote I posted is an actual quotation from the New International Version, not a paraphrase.


Except most rational people will tell you that the Bible is highly unlikely to be composed entirely of the word of God, but was in fact written by a number of different authors over a long period of time, mostly long after the events described supposedly took place. And those authors lived at a time of poor record-keeping, in a society with a number of views modern moral teachings would consider outdated, and had specific views of their own which they likely would have inserted into the religious text they were writing. Which is the entire reason why there are people coming up with alternate interpretations of those texts.


That is an absurd comparison because people who are kidnapped have nothing to do with their kidnapper except that they were taken hostage by force.


Which is why alternate interpretation exists.

Why bother with the alternate interpretation then, if it means they have to ignore most of the book itself? Why not just ditch it and follow a book with a more solid set of morals?

I do want to. Maybe I shouldn't have used quotation marks but, nonetheless, you don't really want to say translation is not a paraphrase, do you?

If that was true, man. If that was true. Dedicated christians will never tell you that. Unless you don't mean them by "most rational people", which is not a very nice thing to say.

You don't really think there are no reprecussions for leaving a religion, do you? Especially the main religion of the country.

There’s a whole number of potential answers to that question. Perhaps they were brought up with that religion and they don’t wish to abandon it; maybe they believe in the broad strokes of the teachings and only have issues with a few specific problematic teachings; maybe they don’t believe another religion could be true.

Religion acts as a moral compass and a set of guidelines for people to live by; it provides meaning and direction for their existence. Turning around and dropping all of that because you disagree with certain passages of the holy text is a lot harder than it may appear to someone who’s never experienced that way of living.


It’s a direct quotation from a specific edition of the Bible. That is a direct quote from a published text, not a paraphrase.



Do you genuinely believe that? Have you asked them?


That actually has nothing to do with what we were talking about. I’m not going to tell you there aren’t repercussions, but that has nothing to do with me saying:

I really like how you behave as if you're reasonable, socially conscious and valid, Nepsotic. It's a solid gag.

I'll tell you why you're not: You know literally jack shit about Social Role Valorization. You have no comprehension, consideration, or understanding for the groups you talk about. I mean, you call yourself an egalitarian and then throw around the word 'Retard' without any self awareness whatsoever. You want to do something nice for people for once? Stop associating intellectual disability with generalized 'wrongness' and learn to articulate a statement without falling back on your adolescent comprehension of language.

You take a big ol' shit all over everything and then fall back on "Well I guess they're not all bad." It's exhausting. Can you please just hurry things along a little and grow up?

Now, before your dipshit ego emerges, it's not about me taking offense. It's contradictory to the idea that you're this informed, grounded person. An adult doesn't need to use the word 'retarded' to articulate themselves, and a socially conscious person would stay well away from it because they know using an medically invalid epithet against intellectually disabled people is an incredibly stupid thing to do.

I can just imagine how incredulously you view this post, which just solidifies how much of a fucking dumbass you are in the first place. You are a cunt for not being considerate of people with disabilities in your obnoxious crusade against the 'PC' crowd, and you're an idiot for thinking you're grounded in reality when you have no comprehension for your use of language in the first place.

Please, go off on me for telling you to be considerate of what mental-health terms you abuse to form your ceaseless, pointless argument. Educate me on how your lack of self awareness is actually a secret, special cleverness and not just a trait of your everlasting ignorance.

And yeah, I know you're not deliberately slagging off people with disabilities. I'm not saying that. I'm saying your inability to play ball and consider your use of language highlights you as just another halfway articulate, extended adolescence motherfucker who hasn't actually experienced enough to justify how you talk about things. You're full of shit, as always.


With that being said, what do the candidates have to say about Mental Health care? The liberals will highlight PTSD and avoid speaking of the shambling, non-functional infrastructure for just about every other facet of care for people with disabilities, but I can't imagine Trump has anything to contribute to the issue aside from a diagnosis, and I have no idea where Bernie stands specifically but I know he's prioritizing socialized medicine in the USA.

Maybe if retarded trannydyke faggots stopped acting like retarded trannydyke faggots then I wouldn't call them retards. It's kind of a retarded argument to make when you ignore any argument I may make and focus on the fact that I said retarded because you don't like me using the word retarded, as if it somehow negates the actual points I made, and frankly that's a bit of a retarded way of viewing things.

I await my infraction eagerly

Again, you're not offending me. You're just contradicting yourself and come across as a pointlessly angry, desperate to be relevant worm.

I'd take it easy if I were you just because of your inevitable diagnosis for a behavior disorder. :spin:

You "await your infraction eagerly?"

Nep, nobody gives a fuck what you think. You just ought to be able to speak your mind like one of the big boys after all this time and it's actually pretty perplexing that you can't. Like seriously, we'd just like you to think before you post. And then think before you think. And then think.

What's your point? "BLINDLY FOLLOWING RELIGIOUS DOGMA IS BAD"? Wow, what an insightful piece of thinking.

I like worms though. I was having a fag in the garden last night and there's this bit of grass, and there were about 13 worms where I was sitting. It was a sight to behold, but I have no idea why they were there, they were all massive too and most weren't even going anywhere.
Maybe they were just worshipping their Lord.

I do actually have an issue with the way you're trying to present your arguments, Nep. Whatever statements you're making would be treated more seriously, if you try to say them in a more neutral manner.

That said, you don't really offend me, nor you're responding to anything I said, so don't take it as an offense. I just think it's a good advice.

How often do you see insightful pieces of thinking on this forum? I was just adding that to what somebody else said and it turned into this massive thing, then you got all upset because you didn't like the fact that I used the word "retard". If you're not offended by it, then what is the point of bringing it up? I don't care if people take me less seriously if I use it, that's on their end. It doesn't negate any actual points I make.

Ugh, I have no patience for living spaghetti. Unless I'm fishing.

I know how patronizing this sounds, but my point is really that I think you're smart enough not to have to use the word 'retard' in any capacity.

I'm sensitive to it because of my education (you got me!) but I think I make a fair point; if your use of language can't be inclusive of those people who are truly devalued and can't speak for themselves, how seriously can your arguments be considered when it comes to groups who are valued enough to get a respectful reference?

It's an honest question of maturity. If you want to just say offensive stuff and upset people, more power to ya, but I think you'd like your statements to be more thoughtfully considered. Maybe.

I mean I'm guilty of this too. I'm a big hypocrite when it comes to telling people to 'post nicer' but I don't think that completely invalidates the idea.

Okay, I seriously derailed this thread so if you wanna keep chatting about it, PM me, but I'm gonna bow out because I don't really care about the election at this point.