This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Woman with power of attorney for father secretly transfers the title of his house to herself, and evicts him. The internet buys it back.
Post by
Adamsm
I'm torn here
; on the one hand, can understand why, but one the other, since the parents have been heard saying they blame Hunt for their daughter's homosexuality. /sigh
Post by
Squishalot
Parents' comments aside, technically it's against the law. Underage sex is a crime for very good reason.
That said, I don't know that the police are being entirely honest when they say they'd prosecute a male/female relationship in the same way, but I do appreciate that the case has merit.
Post by
Adamsm
Aye, I sorta of doubt that myself.
Post by
Magician22773
Moved
at mod request:
Dude, stop. We all know how this conversation is going to go. You wouldn't want Christianity to be judged based on the actions of extremists, stop judging Islam based on the actions of the same.
When Christians start beheading soldiers in public while shouting "Glory to Christ!" while doing it, then I would expect the article to be posted, and the judgement to be as harsh. Until then, I see nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.
Post by
Gone
Moved
at mod request:
Dude, stop. We all know how this conversation is going to go. You wouldn't want Christianity to be judged based on the actions of extremists, stop judging Islam based on the actions of the same.
When Christians start beheading soldiers in public while shouting "Glory to Christ!" while doing it, then I would expect the article to be posted, and the judgement to be as harsh. Until then, I see nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.
There have been plenty of violent Christian extremists in history, and no I don't mean the Crusades. Maybe you wanna take another look at the symbol the Klan would burn on people's lawns a mere 50 years ago.
There's a difference between saying that Christianity, as in keeping with it's original source, is a more peaceful religion, and saying that Islam, on the whole, is violent.
You can say Muslim extremists are violent, and nobody would disagree with you. You could say that Christ's teachings are more peaceful than Muhammad's, and you would be hard pressed to find an unbiased person that disagrees. You could even say that you think Muhammad was a false prophet and a liar, and most non Muslims, especially Christians, including myself, would agree.
But when you imply that Islam itself is a violent religion, you are, by implication, calling every practitioner violent. And yes, despite what you see in the news, the violent ones do represent a minority.
Seriously we all know how this conversation will go. You imply that Islam is violent. Somebody, probably Patty (if he was still posting) will call you Islamophobic. Somebody else, probably myself for Skreeran will bring up Westburo. Adam will say that his experiences with Christianity have been more negative than with Islam. A massive &*!@ storm will ensue and the mods will lock the thread for 24 hours.
Can we just skip all that and drop the issue?
Post by
Squishalot
So, from my perspective, I'd like to see discussion about an article conducted with respect. That includes (with reference to this specific issue):
Respect for the religions involved (and those not involved which are brought in)
Respect for the people who lost their lives and their families
Respect for other people here who are discussing the issue
I think it's fine and reasonable to discuss this story - after all, it's breaking news across the globe. I just want this to be done in a way that treats everybody and everything involved with respect
irrespective of whether you think it is due
. Murder is a horrible thing, especially when it's done in the name of religion, but that doesn't mean you should a) treat the murderer with disrespect, nor b) treat the religion with disrespect. Let's try and keep it civil, okay?
Post by
Gone
I have no problem debating it, but based on what he said, and the other link he posted, it's pretty clear he came in here with an agenda.
Post by
Squishalot
So with that said, it's worth noting that the murderer had a conversation with a bystander afterwards and stated that his actions were in retribution for the fact that the British soldiers had killed Muslims.
In that respect, looking from their perspective, how is this different from US / British soldiers going into the Middle East and killing Muslim soldiers from various groups?
I have no problem debating it, but based on what he said, and the other link he posted, it's pretty clear he came in here with an agenda.
Then let's try to deal with everything respectfully. Suffice to say, as it's quite a tense issue, the moderator team is paying close attention to this topic.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Gone
In that respect, looking from their perspective, how is this different from US / British soldiers going into the Middle East and killing Muslim soldiers from various groups?
Because he's from a white wealthy country, so according to the media, and the Western world in general, he matters more than a group of Afghan teenagers who get blown up in a drone strike.
Not that I'm saying I'm against drone strikes, or the war in the Mid East. Just noting the hypocrisy of people's reactions to things like this.
Post by
Magician22773
Moved
at mod request:
Dude, stop. We all know how this conversation is going to go. You wouldn't want Christianity to be judged based on the actions of extremists, stop judging Islam based on the actions of the same.
When Christians start beheading soldiers in public while shouting "Glory to Christ!" while doing it, then I would expect the article to be posted, and the judgement to be as harsh. Until then, I see nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.
There have been plenty of violent Christian extremists in history, and no I don't mean the Crusades. Maybe you wanna take another look at the symbol the Klan would burn on people's lawns a mere 50 years ago.
There's a difference between saying that Christianity, as in keeping with it's original source, is a more peaceful religion, and saying that Islam, on the whole, is violent.
You can say Muslim extremists are violent, and nobody would disagree with you. You could say that Christ's teachings are more peaceful than Muhammad's, and you would be hard pressed to find an unbiased person that disagrees. You could even say that you think Muhammad was a false prophet and a liar, and most non Muslims, especially Christians, including myself, would agree.
But when you imply that Islam itself is a violent religion, you are, by implication, calling every practitioner violent. And yes, despite what you see in the news, the violent ones do represent a minority.
Seriously we all know how this conversation will go. You imply that Islam is violent. Somebody, probably Patty (if he was still posting) will call you Islamophobic. Somebody else, probably myself for Skreeran will bring up Westburo. Adam will say that his experiences with Christianity have been more negative than with Islam. A massive &*!@ storm will ensue and the mods will lock the thread for 24 hours.
Can we just skip all that and drop the issue?
I'm not even saying that I disagree with you here. My only issue is that if anyone wants to offer a comparison, lets stick to current events, and those that are at least more closely related to the actual teachings of a religion, not just one that uses a symbol from one in its actions.
Hell, I will even help you out here, and give you some talking points.
Westboro. A vile, filthy representation of Christianity. But what do they do? They picket funerals (usually they don't even do that, they just threaten it), and they carry signs with nasty words on them. At best, they try to use emotion to make their twisted point. I do not recall any violence associated with them, outside of a scuffle.
Israel / Palestine. The Palestinians are at the very least, culpable in their losses. Not only do they tend to be the aggressor in most conflicts, but they also have a bad habit of using women and children as shields to intentionally increase the innocent casualties in their war. Also, they are at least containing their violence toward each other within what would be considered a "war zone". Even if you do not agree with Israel, at least their tactics are that of "war". They are not killing indiscriminately. I do not recall any news stories about Israelis killing Palestinians in the streets of Great Britain lately.
US soldiers killing innocent people in the Middle East. Sadly, the US has had soldiers "snap" and go on killing sprees in the Middle East. These acts are horrible crimes, and they should be (and are being) punished for them. Even the stress of war is no excuse. But that is what it is, the stress of war. It is not a "Christian" killing Muslims for being Muslims.
As for just "dropping it"....sorry, but no. Instead of me dropping a current event issue, maybe Patty should stay away, or stay quiet. Maybe Skreeran should find a better argument than Westboro (see above). Adamsm can save his stories of his childhood...we have all heard them before. And maybe the mods should let me express my distaste for Islamist's murdering soldiers in the streets, much the same as others can express their distaste for Christianity in 1000 other posts.
In that respect, looking from their perspective, how is this different from US / British soldiers going into the Middle East and killing Muslim soldiers from various groups?
None...as long as they can be considered enemy combatants while on our soil, and be disposed of as such.
We are at war over there
. If they want to bring that war here, so be it. They should be fair game to be shot on sight in the street then.
Then let's try to deal with everything respectfully. Suffice to say, as it's quite a tense issue, the moderator team is paying close attention to this topic.
How come there is probably at least 500 pages of essentially anti-Christian posts in OT, but when a topic that might be anti-Islamic comes up, we get an advance warning from a mod?
Post by
Squishalot
How come there is probably at least 500 pages of essentially anti-Christian posts in OT, but when a topic that might be anti-Islamic comes up, we get an advance warning from a mod?
Because people have died in the last 24 hours in relation to this article, and using their recent murder as a political point-scoring soap-box is distasteful and disrespectful. I would say the same thing if someone died due to mosque being burned down. You can be anti-Islamic all you like and criticise them all day long, as long as you do it in a manner that respects all parties involved.
Post by
Magician22773
How come there is probably at least 500 pages of essentially anti-Christian posts in OT, but when a topic that might be anti-Islamic comes up, we get an advance warning from a mod?
Because people have died in the last 24 hours in relation to this article, and using their recent murder as a political point-scoring soap-box is distasteful and disrespectful. I would say the same thing if someone died due to mosque being burned down. You can be anti-Islamic all you like and criticise them all day long, as long as you do it in a manner that respects all parties involved.
So am I supposed to respect the people that killed the people in the last 24 hours? And how about the posts that came immediately after Boston? I don't recall a warning then.
It just seems a little bit odd, and quite honestly, threatening, that you made that comment. It seems like I, and anyone else that may be pissed about yet another Islamist attack, are being directed to leave our opinions at the door, unless of course we want to somehow sympathize with the guy that brutally murdered them in the street.
Post by
Gone
1) It's not just the US soldiers that snap and kill people in the Mid East. There have been government sanctioned bomb strikes, that went through all the proper channels, that killed innocent civilians, including children.
2) I'ts common knowledge that Islamic extremists are more violent than Christian extremists. I would even go so far as to say as a whole, Christianity is more peaceful than Islam. However, I say again, that does not mean Islam is a violent religion.
3) I support Israel, but take a look at those pictures from the Gaza Strip of dead women and children, then come back here and continue idealizing their "war".
4) If you think there are no religious motives for US soldiers killing Muslims, you are deluding yourself. One of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib who took part in the rape, torture, and mutilation of innocent civilians was quoted as telling a captive to "love Jesus" as he was beating the living %^&* out of him. This was the same guy that was caught in a picture with three other guards pinning down and gang raping an Arab women.
Post by
Skreeran
Here's the thing. Either Christians and Muslims can come to an understanding through respect and human compassion, or one can destroy the other. Anything less than total destruction of one religion or the other would only increase the hatred between the two.
I could never, ever sanction that kind of bloodshed, so I have to stand for rationalism and respect.
Post by
Magician22773
1) It's not just the US soldiers that snap and kill people in the Mid East. There have been government sanctioned bomb strikes, that went through all the proper channels, that killed innocent civilians, including children.
That is war. It sucks. I wish it didn't exist, but it does. What doesn't exist is US forces that specifically target innocent civilians. The last
government sanctioned
targeting of civilians by US forces was the end of WWII. That is not to say that thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians have not been killed as collateral damage, and that sucks too.There is no comparison between collateral damage of war, and terrorist attacks...
none
.
2) I'ts common knowledge that Islamic extremists are more violent than Christian extremists. I would even go so far as to say as a whole, Christianity is more peaceful than Islam. However, I say again, that does not mean Islam is a violent religion.
I disagree. I think it is a violent religion. I have read enough of the Quran, and done enough of my own research to come to that conclusion. It is not the media. It is not misinterpretation. The words are the words. The Islamists that are non-violent are the ones that are not following what their religion teaches them. They are hypocrites, according to their own religion. The "radicals" are the ones left that actually follow the Quran as it is written.
That is not to say that the majority are violent. I have never said that. I don't think anyone ever has. But just because a majority do not engage in the violence that their religion calls for, does not change the premise that the religion is based on. A majority of Christians, myself included, do not practice Christianity the way the Bible says too either.
3) I support Israel, but take a look at those pictures from the Gaza Strip of dead women and children, then come back here and continue idealizing their "war".
I don't like seeing those pictures any more than you do. But guess what....thats is exactly why they take those pictures. So your natural empathy will override what they are doing. They intentionally place rocket launchers in schoolyards, so that if the launchers are targeted, children will be killed. They also have no problem strapping explosives to those same children, and detonating them.
I have said it before, if the Palestinians ever stop lobbing rockets into Israel, and Israel still continues to attack them, then I will condemn Israel. But until that happens, they have a right to defend, and retaliate, against being attacked.
4) If you think there are no religious motives for US soldiers killing Muslims, you are deluding yourself.
One
of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib who took part in the rape, torture, and mutilation of innocent civilians was quoted as telling a captive to "love Jesus" as he was beating the living %^&* out of him. This was the same guy that was caught in a picture with three other guards pinning down and gang raping an Arab women.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, but a source here would be nice, as I have not heard of that particular incident. What I recall of Abu Ghraib was arab men being stripped naked and photographed. But, for purposes of this debate, I will consider it to have happened.
As I highlighted...that is
One
. I could fill a page on this forum with news articles about Islamic "radicals", you have provided
one
. Even if you could scrape together a dozen, I could present a hundred.
Here's the thing. Either Christians and Muslims can come to an understanding through respect and human compassion, or one can destroy the other. Anything less than total destruction of one religion or the other would only increase the hatred between the two.
I could never, ever sanction that kind of bloodshed, so I have to stand for rationalism and respect.
That is only the case because the Muslims cannot bring themselves to a peaceful resolution with Christians
because their religion expressly forbids it.
If Muslims suddenly stopped attacking Christians, I do not believe that any predominantly Christian nation, particularly the US, would insist on the destruction of Islam.
Post by
Gone
Here's the thing. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the extremists really did represent a majority of Muslims. What then? I hate Islamophobia because it reeks of trying to incite holy war. It just make it into an us vs. them thing, where Westerners are the good guys and Muslims are the bad guys.
One thing about this. If Islamic extremists and terrorists did represent the whole of Islam, then they
would
be the enemy. If there's an entire country of people that don't care if they die, and their family die, and their neighbors die, and have access to nuclear weapons, that's just asking for a mass tragedy. If every Muslim was really like the pieces of $%^& who blow themselves up and try and take as many innocent people as possible out with them, I would be all for completely eradicating the religion.
Of course obviously every Muslim is
not
like this.
Post by
Skreeran
I disagree. I think it is a violent religion. I have read enough of the Quran, and done enough of my own research to come to that conclusion. It is not the media. It is not misinterpretation. The words are the words. The Islamists that are non-violent are the ones that are not following what their religion teaches them. They are hypocrites, according to their own religion. The "radicals" are the ones left that actually follow the Quran as it is written.
That is not to say that the majority are violent. I have never said that. I don't think anyone ever has. But just because a majority do not engage in the violence that their religion calls for, does not change the premise that the religion is based on. A majority of Christians, myself included, do not practice Christianity the way the Bible says too either.I think the Old Testament is inherently violent. But I don't hate Jews.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, but a source here would be nice, as I have not heard of that particular incident. What I recall of Abu Ghraib was arab men being stripped naked and photographed. But, for purposes of this debate, I will consider it to have happened.
As I highlighted...that is One. I could fill a page on this forum with news articles about Islamic "radicals", you have provided one. Even if you could scrape together a dozen, I could present a hundred.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#More_evidence_of_torture
'Do you pray to Allah?' one asked. I said yes. They said, ' you. And him.' One of them said, 'You are not getting out of here health, you are getting out of here handicapped. And he said to me, 'Are you married?' I said, 'Yes.' They said, 'If your wife saw you like this, she will be disappointed.' One of them said, 'But if I saw her now she would not be disappointed now because I would rape her.' " "They ordered me to thank Jesus that I'm alive." "I said to him, 'I believe in Allah.' So he said, 'But I believe in torture and I will torture you.'
Here's the thing. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the extremists really did represent a majority of Muslims. What then? I hate Islamophobia because it reeks of trying to incite holy war. It just make it into an us vs. them thing, where Westerners are the good guys and Muslims are the bad guys.
One thing about this. If Islamic extremists and terrorists did represent the whole of Islam, then they
would
be the enemy. If there's an entire country of people that don't care if they die, and their family die, and their neighbors die, and have access to nuclear weapons, that's just asking for a mass tragedy. If every Muslim was really like the pieces of $%^& who blow themselves up and try and take as many innocent people as possible out with them, I would be all for completely eradicating the religion.
Of course obviously every Muslim is
not
like this.But that's not realistic. There's no point in discussing what ifs.
Germany in 1943 was a Nazi-majority, and you'd be hard pressed to find an idealogy more heartless and violent than Nazism. But we didn't just go kill every German who'd ever identified as a Nazi because that would have been
wrong
.
I believe genocide is wrong no matter who it is you're killing, what they've done, or what they believe.
Post by
Gone
That is war.
That's exactly what terrorists think.
There is no comparison between collateral damage of war, and terrorist attacks...none.Tell that to the families of the people who are killed.
And don't use the words
collateral damage
. You're not a soldier, so the only point in using that specific military talk is to make the term seem prettier. And yes, it's not the same as deliberately targeting civilians, but you are trying to idealize the US actions and make them seem prettier than they really are. You implied that the only times innocent Arabs were killed in the war on terror were when a single US soldier snaps and goes rogue.
As I highlighted...that is One. I could fill a page on this forum with news articles about Islamic "radicals", you have provided one. Even if you could scrape together a dozen, I could present a hundred.
That has more to do with their culture being in the stone age than the religion itself. I'm willing to bed that there have been more atrocities done in the name of Christianity than the actions you are referring to with Islam. You can say that these things don't happen anymore, but that likely has more to do with most Christians living in a more enlightened society than the actual merits of the religions themselves.
As I said, Christianity is a more peaceful religion, but people as a whole are not peaceful. Like I said, take a look at our history and you can see that.
Germany in 1943 was a Nazi-majority, and you'd be hard pressed to find an idealogy more heartless and violent than Nazism. But we didn't just go kill every German who'd ever identified as a Nazi because that would have been
wrong
.
We eradicated the Nazi party though. I wasn't talking about killing every Arab, just putting an end to the religion in your hypothetical.
Post by
Skreeran
That has more to do with their culture being in the stone age than the religion itself. I'm willing to bed that there have been more atrocities done in the name of Christianity than the actions you are referring to with Islam. You can say that these things don't happen anymore, but that likely has more to do with most Christians living in a more enlightened society than the actual merits of the religions themselves.Not so much the Stone Age as a Dark Age. Islam used to be much more "enlightened" than the Western world. They're just in a dark spot at the moment.
We eradicated the Nazi party though. I wasn't talking about killing every Arab, just putting an end to the religion in your hypothetical.Well, this hypothetical isn't really getting us anywhere, so I'm just going to move back to reality.
We can't just kill all the radicals. Going in and killing everyone who hates America will only make their families and their neighbors hate America for coming in and killing people. This is a problem that has to be solved by Islam. We should defend ourselves, but we can't force Islam to change against it's will, or it will only drive them to hate us more. Again, I feel the best solution is emphasizing that we are thinking feeling humans, just like them. If we can help them try to understand our point of view, and simultaneously see things from their point of view, we might solve this thing by talking about it, rather than killing each other.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.