Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW?
Posts
Alichains
637
Alichains
View playlists
CloseDiscussion is fine, even necessary, but flat out bigotry to the extent that it makes another poster uncomfortable and then hiding behind "it's just a difference of opinion" is never ok.
SnowOwl
5188
author=SolitayreThat's not how the real world works. Even if there's a true believer living next door, the likelihood that they will plot to kill you is small, if they have a decent life. People are too lazy/comfortable to throw away their life if they have decent living conditions. They will probably just secretly consider you sub-human scum and lie to you if it will be to their benefit and they can get away with it, because that's what the Quran tells them to do.
Nobody said culture is unassailable, the problems with those countries have been well-documented and I don't think anyone is trying to say it's all sunshine and rainbows over there. But propagating the notion that your Islamic neighbors secretly want to kill you is just toxic, inflammatory prejudice.
Move to somewhere with 99% muslims with laws that forbid any religion but Islam (and assuming you're a Christian) instead, and what do you think your (short) life will be like?
Edit: The definition of a bigot is: "A person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."
I'm very tolerant to others opinions, I just don't tolerate opinions that leads to people being treated like shit. That's what following most major religions would lead to, by the way. That obviously includes Christianity, but the problem isn't as big because Christianity has basically been pussified during the last 100 years, which is a good thing, and nobody really follows the book as literally as a lot of muslims do. There's still exceptions (if I don't put this in at least once every time I say something someone will say "b-b-b-b-but this person is a shitty person and he's CHRISTIAN").
When you start getting into religious beliefs that call for slaughtering the infidels you're basically talking about extremist fundamentalism, which is basically a completely different beast. I don't believe that most practicing Muslims support extreme fundamentalism, just as I believe most practicing Christians don't. You can definitely see elements of Christian fundamentalism in America, but most people just roll their eyes at them, even though they're """""technically""""" following the Bible.
Now, you can definitely talk about places like Iran where extreme fundamentalism holds enormous power in the government. But that doesn't mean most Iranian citizens are ready to go start killing infidels if they get the chance. Most young Iranians don't support their government very much, in fact! This is a pretty serious problem in American politics were populations of Arabic nations are treated like rats that need to be exterminated for the good of humanity instead of victims of oppressive systems. And yes, one of those oppressive systems is extreme, Islamic fundamentalism, but saying 'a person sufficiently invested in the Islamic faith is probably violent towards women and non-believers' is basically saying Al-Qaeda or ISIS is the true form of Islam, when it's actually a dangerous perversion.
Now, you can definitely talk about places like Iran where extreme fundamentalism holds enormous power in the government. But that doesn't mean most Iranian citizens are ready to go start killing infidels if they get the chance. Most young Iranians don't support their government very much, in fact! This is a pretty serious problem in American politics were populations of Arabic nations are treated like rats that need to be exterminated for the good of humanity instead of victims of oppressive systems. And yes, one of those oppressive systems is extreme, Islamic fundamentalism, but saying 'a person sufficiently invested in the Islamic faith is probably violent towards women and non-believers' is basically saying Al-Qaeda or ISIS is the true form of Islam, when it's actually a dangerous perversion.
author=Solitayre
When you start getting into religious beliefs that call for slaughtering the infidels you're basically talking about extremist fundamentalism, which is basically a completely different beast. I don't believe that most practicing Muslims support extreme fundamentalism, just as I believe most practicing Christians don't. You can definitely see elements of Christian fundamentalism in America, but most people just roll their eyes at them, even though they're """""technically""""" following the Bible.
Even really, technically they're not following the Bible. Fundie Christians can be easily demonstrated to pick and choose which Bible verses apply to them and which don't. I actually demonstrated this recently to a Fundie I got into an argument with who was supporting Kim Davis (I pretended to be a Fundie and chastised her for disobeying various Biblical commands...which she was). Boy did she get mad. She didn't seem to care about any of the Bible verses that command that she treat her neighbors with kindness or to obey the laws of man.
Now, you can definitely talk about places like Iran where extreme fundamentalism holds enormous power in the government.
Who jumped like rabbits on the opportunity for peace with a nation that is by population, mostly Christian. I definitely recall a verse in the Qu'ran that forbids treating with infidels.
But that doesn't mean most Iranian citizens are ready to go start killing infidels if they get the chance. Most young Iranians don't support their government very much, in fact! This is a pretty serious problem in American politics were populations of Arabic nations are treated like rats that need to be exterminated for the good of humanity instead of victims of oppressive systems.
But the Iranian government is still pretty extremist.
And yes, one of those oppressive systems is extreme, Islamic fundamentalism, but saying 'a person sufficiently invested in the Islamic faith is probably violent towards women and non-believers' is basically saying Al-Qaeda or ISIS is the true form of Islam, when it's actually a dangerous perversion.
And according to Edward Snowden and the Department of Intelligence, they're also funded, trained, and supplied by the U. S. government, so there's pretty much a plethora of evidence that true Islam has very little to do with ISIS.
SnowOwl
5188
I'm not sure why people have to take it to it's extreme all the time. The most extreme parts of Islam is the ones getting the most exposure, but that doesn't mean that tamer parts of it aren't still problematic.
I also never said that stronger belief means that someone will automatically beat their wife, I just said that it's more likely, which doesn't sound like much of a difference, but there's a big difference in what is implied.
Saying that most men is violent towards women implies that they do it for fun, while saying that they are more likely to be violent implies that they think it's okay to be violent towards women, which is a big difference, and since they think it's okay they are more likely to turn to violence, but they won't do so in 100% of cases.
Edit:
Islam teaches people that certain things that is what I and most sane people consider to be wrong is a-okay to do; like stoning people to death, cutting off the hands of thieves, lashing adulterers, treating non-believers like sub-humans, and a plethora of other things less violent but still shitty things (many of them including women). 100% of muslims don't follow 100% of the Quran, but a large part of muslims follow enough of the shitty parts that the religion does waaaaaay more bad than it does good. That's why Islam is the shittiest religion, and why a large part of muslims are shitty people (not 100%, you don't need to mark my words here). It's the religions fault, but that doesn't make them any less shitty.
I also never said that stronger belief means that someone will automatically beat their wife, I just said that it's more likely, which doesn't sound like much of a difference, but there's a big difference in what is implied.
Saying that most men is violent towards women implies that they do it for fun, while saying that they are more likely to be violent implies that they think it's okay to be violent towards women, which is a big difference, and since they think it's okay they are more likely to turn to violence, but they won't do so in 100% of cases.
Edit:
Islam teaches people that certain things that is what I and most sane people consider to be wrong is a-okay to do; like stoning people to death, cutting off the hands of thieves, lashing adulterers, treating non-believers like sub-humans, and a plethora of other things less violent but still shitty things (many of them including women). 100% of muslims don't follow 100% of the Quran, but a large part of muslims follow enough of the shitty parts that the religion does waaaaaay more bad than it does good. That's why Islam is the shittiest religion, and why a large part of muslims are shitty people (not 100%, you don't need to mark my words here). It's the religions fault, but that doesn't make them any less shitty.
Taken literally, Christianity has a lot of the same problems as Islam with regards to treatment of women. I don't think someone coming here saying 'Christian men think it's okay to treat their wife like property because the Bible says it's okay' would get taken very seriously.
author=SnowOwl
Move to somewhere with 99% muslims with laws that forbid any religion but Islam (and assuming you're a Christian) instead, and what do you think your (short) life will be like?
So, my sister (American and non-practicing Christian) worked and lived in Saudi Arabia for a few years with her husband. They're not big on atheism there either. She was able to live just fine, although obviously she wasn't outspoken about her beliefs - it seems to be a more or less unspoken rule that you just shouldn't talk about being non-Christian. There's a big demand for American teachers in SA right now, because there are a lot of rich people in the country and they want to be able to work with English-speaking countries, so maybe that's why they're okay with non-Islamic teachers. She lived on a separated campus with other foreign teachers (Americans, Canadians, British, other Europeans). On the campus she was allowed to wear casual clothing, there was a swimming pool, etc.
Now this is all secondhand knowledge from her, but it's not an exaggeration to say that the country is not equal for women and men. My sister was not allowed to drive, bike, and was often entirely separated from men in public shops (although having a husband with her made things easier). She was required to wear a burka and was yelled at by police once for her face not being covered on the street. She was never beaten or harmed or abused by the police or other men. Apparently there is also a psuedo-caste system, where native Saudis are treated better than foreigners like Americans, who are treated better than immigrants from nearby countries such as Pakistan.
Anywho, none of this really matters. Living in Saudi isn't some immediate "death sentence", although it's certainly not going to be friendly to people who are used to the freedoms and relative equality we have in America or in other countries. And none of this justifies Islamophobia and the racism that's tied to people who "look like terrorists" against Muslims who live elsewhere and don't follow and act on the harmful parts of the religion. Saudi Arabia doesn't sound like a place I'd care to live, but believe me, I have strong doubts that countries with governments centered around fundamentalist Christianity would be appealing either.
Solitayre
Taken literally, Christianity has a lot of the same problems as Islam with regards to treatment of women. I don't think someone coming here saying 'Christian men think it's okay to treat their wife like property because the Bible says it's okay' would get taken very seriously.
The parallels exist because Islam is based on Christianity. Muhammad believed he was the second coming of Christ. He wasn't right in the head.
SnowOwl
I also never said that stronger belief means that someone will automatically beat their wife, I just said that it's more likely, which doesn't sound like much of a difference, but there's a big difference in what is implied.
Well, in your statement with your handy chart, you said it couldn't be at 100% because not everybody could be that stupid, but that contradicts your previous posts in which you pretty much equate all Muslims with evil incarnate, and then use that to equate all Arabs with evil incarnate. So if I don't accept your percentage charity, you know why.
EDIT:
Edit:
Islam teaches people that certain things that is what I and most sane people consider to be wrong is a-okay to do; like stoning people to death, cutting off the hands of thieves, lashing adulterers, treating non-believers like sub-humans, and a plethora of other things less violent but still shitty things (many of them including women). 100% of muslims don't follow 100% of the Quran, but a large part of muslims follow enough of the shitty parts that the religion does waaaaaay more bad than it does good. That's why Islam is the shittiest religion, and why a large part of muslims are shitty people (not 100%, you don't need to mark my words here).
Meanwhile, 80% of Muslims live outside of the Middle East, and have no problems getting along with their non-Muslim neighbors.
SnowOwl
5188
@pianotm
You've already proven to me once that you will pick and choose parts of what someone say and then take from those parts your opinion of what they said, and you've proven it once again. Why don't you go stand in the bigot corner yourself.
You've already proven to me once that you will pick and choose parts of what someone say and then take from those parts your opinion of what they said, and you've proven it once again. Why don't you go stand in the bigot corner yourself.
You're the only bigot here, SnowOwl. But of course, a typical bigot would go on a racist tirade and call his victims bigots.
User was warned for this post
author=SatedpianotmWhat you wrote isn't very clear, so are you saying that you think that the U.S. Government is funding and supplying a group (ISIS) that it's also actively dropping bombs on? If so, can you provide some evidence?
And according to Edward Snowden and the Department of Intelligence, they're also funded, trained, and supplied by the U.S. government, so there's pretty much a plethora of evidence that true Islam has very little to do with ISIS.
500 million dollars to aid Syrian rebels. Even then we were calling them ISIS.
Apparently, some of our citizens are even members.
Then there's this little gem.
Sorry, double post.
None of your articles point to what you implied: That the U.S. Government is directly, purposefully funding ISIS.
Sorry, didn't mean to say it quite that way. Still, ISIS owes its existence to the US.
Seriously, though. You don't think that if something were coming towards us from space we wouldn't be told? Hell yes we would! If only so all the countries of the world (or the majority of them) could work together in order to come up with a huge fucking ray gun or something to destroy the fuck out of said something. And people know when something happens in the government that is huge because the government is made up of big people, yes, but little people too. Little people who go home to their families and have to lie about big things and little things, but if you think that nothing would leak about impending doom from space, you don't understand human nature very well. We're a very social species that love to talk. Even those of us who don't go out and talk to others outside of the house do talk on the internet.
And you really think every government in the world hasn't got some eyes in the skies? (or most of them) And that each and every one would be tight lipped about death coming from the skies?
We'd hear about it.
And you really think every government in the world hasn't got some eyes in the skies? (or most of them) And that each and every one would be tight lipped about death coming from the skies?
We'd hear about it.
Right right we kinda come to an agreement that the asteroid might not be a thing, what about the sudden economic crisis?
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
economic crisis - misplacing your wallet
practically the same thing
practically the same thing
Lib, I said they'd try to keep it a secret, not that they would be able to do so successfully. Though to be serious (well more serious) for a moment there are plenty of deep dark things going on that only come to light when a whistle-blower raises concerns and takes the brave step out of the shadows. Snowden for all his faults shone a light on some very underhanded and scuttling things that had been going on for years in the intelligence services that the public had no idea about. Keeping secrets isn't something Govt are particularly good at long term, but they can do it quite well short term as long as it is in house. The whole asteroid come to kill us not so much because there is too much that is available to the amateur or the enthusiast, so no we'd know toute de suite that we're in for a blast.
Mirak, it's not sudden, look at the share market trends over the last two years.
Mirak, it's not sudden, look at the share market trends over the last two years.
