₦airaland Forum

ummsulaym: first bolded explains your level of understanding so am just gonna do the second bolded... Right is right and wrong is wrong, there is no two ways about that, so 'moving on...'

Thank you for making my point

Your morality, with it's child brides amd female slaves you hold as absolute truths; right is right and wrong is wrong. Excellent. The rest of us have no place questioning tje absolute word of allah, yes? How dare silly man made institutions like government do that.

You didnt address anything as well. You even concede the clash in inevitable, yet you want the west to just bend over?

Keep your nonsense in the caves. Nobody forvrs you to come over. Especially considering how repressive your silly beliefs are


Lb, in my opinion it's silly to encourage these folk. Just as it's silly to accept any nonsense theory like demon SMS simply because you want to appear open-minded. Being liberal does not equal turning a blind eye to intolerance

Logicbwoy: You know when someone is arguing nonsense- they bring irrelevant stuff to the argument.

-child marriage
-pe.dophilia

^^
These have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

The case is simple- a woman is free to wear what she wants to wear, given that she is not naked. Why is such a simple explanation of freedom of expression and freedom of religion so hard to understand?

Do I like the burkha? No
Do I like women in baggy pants? No
But like all articles of clothing, it is the woman's choice to make for herself.

The argument is so simple.


Thank goodness that the UK is not like france or saudi arabia where women are told what not to wear.

You're an eediot. Nothing more to add

ummsulaym: Agreed that it may not be avoided but the way and with what they want to fuel it, is soooooo wrong... Burqa isn't just 'anything.' That it has to do with one's religion is enough reason to free them...

And what could that 'very foundation' be and how high can we say this price is? I want to know

on a level ground and regardless of whatever, banning burqa cannot be justified... Am not asking anyone(e.g wiegraf) to agree with that, but truth is clear...

And you wonder why people think you're intolerant? You're not asking me? Who do you think you are? Not to mention you agree it cannot be avoided??

Do you even understand what separation of church and state is? Hint; it does not involve telling people how to dress because a story book said so. Or giving people a free pass to do as they wish simply because GOD!!??

Moving on, good, so you state it cannot be justified (shikena!!), then you'd agree forcing women to wear it cannot be justified as well, yes?

ummsulaym: @wiegraf, the world is almost at its(her) peak of 'no peace,' don't you think muslims leaving that country and non-muslims asked to leave muslims'(arab) countries only complicates the already complicated world?

I wish it could be avoided, but it can't. Else the very foundation of western society is in jeopardy.

Some prices are far too high.

deols: what is this one saying?

If I think women should not be forced to not wear what they want, don't you think that I would want that people be not forced to wear what they don't want ?

You seem to be reasoning backward not to be able to tell that I do not care whether someone is gay or not so far they are not bothering me with it.

If you care for gay people, isn't it just a warped up thinking that makes you want the rights of some others trampled on?

You do not care? I do not care as that's irrelevant. And you aren't the only muslim that doesn't care, mind you. BUT ISLAM CLEARLY DOES. And in islamic societies you have failed to show any sort of respect to women's rights (in particular), gay rights, etc, as far as western standards are concerned. Non at all.

Again, the intolerance clearly makes you stand out. No one's complaining about the other groups, no? Everyone else plays nice except you. If gays were advocating for robbing the rights of straight people I will not support them, in any way whatsoever, as well. That is a salient difference between their case and yours.

Logicbwoy: lol......you are wharrrgarbling...you sound disjointed.

Focus on the issue= the right to wear the burkha.


There is hypocrisy because many of the people who push for burkha rights do not talk about the other side of it- where women are actually forced to wear the burkha in some muslim countries. However, that is not what this thread is about.


This thread is about the banning of the burkha. Once you agree to the principle of human rights and freedom of expression, you cant restrict clothing unless it is harmful to others.

What in the universe makes you think you are capable of telling me what a good argument is?

What are you smoking?

Logicbwoy: Is wearing a burkha a crime? False equivalence

What is with this false equivalence? This guy, learn to argue properly.


Burkha a type of clothing. It is a choice to wear it

Lb, it's quite the task for you, but try to limit your eediocy. It obviously isn't a crime, but they're trying to make it one, no? You talk as if what is a crime is objective, that's silly. We simply stick up for our values.

If you think there's no problem here then you shouldn't have any issues with yarima and those kids. You do know that if asked most of those kids are quite content being a ped.o's plaything, yes? You do know that they will quite willingly get married to uncle, yes? After all, god decreed it, therefore it's fine. So yarima really should be allowed to get his wives recognized legally, yes? He should be allowed to wear rings and whatnot, and extol on the virtues of child marriage, no? To present it as something positive, no?

Again, what is a crime in the west is robbing people of their rights. The burkha is a clear cut symbol of that, just as say some sort of marriage rings for pe.dos would be a symbol of that practice. Neither of these should be tolerated so long as we're sticking to what the west values.

To compound on that, there's their infamous intolerance. Consider NAZI, their shi.t isn't allowed in a lot of places just because they stand for heinous morals by the average western standards, it's mostly because they're terribly intolerant. If they get a chance they will act on said intolerance, like they did during hitler's years. If muslims get a chance they'll rob females of their rights, like they do in islamic societies.

It's not like they've not been given their chance to demonstrate maturity, they have and they have failed. Again, do you see anyone clamoring for the same for buddhists, sikhs, etc?

You do not condone nonsense from intolerants, simple. That is the west's value system at work there.

Now, try to use your head and be reasonable if you're going to reply

deols: I still dont understand the reason anyone would want to control the choices others make for themselves.

And dont tell me some warped reasoning of social responsibility.

It is, though somewhat simplifying, exactly that. Just as you have your own warped reasoning/social responsibility that entails your forcing women to wear the full ninja uniform or even just cover their hair, legs, etc.

World cup time is coming, how are you going to handle the hom.osexuals and drinkers that are bound to show up? Do you think that because your storybook claims GOD!!?, your reasoning is some way, in any way whatsoever, more sensible than theirs??

It's really simple, if you don't approve of their norms, leave the country or don't visit. Same you tell foreigners who show up in islamic countries, no?

Logicbwoy: Nonsense. If a woman wants to wear a sack from chest down, it is her choice
If a woman wants to wear a burkha, it is her choice.

Choice is the keyword.

Again, it is also by choice one can go about committing any manner of crime, doesn't mean we should just let it be.

You've added nothing. You might as well be italo, telling me shikena!

It's simple, explain to me why their intolerance should be indulged, then perhaps you'd have a case.

I'm not even sure if they're clear on how the system works. Do they wait till the day of judgement first, or is it immediately after they die? Or is it a timeless procedure as well, occurring both before the day of judgment and on the day of judgement? Fixing the future, thereby defenestrating free will?

Maybe they should waste 50+ pages debating this (using their trusty storybooks) first before we decide on, among other things, just what the best way to get them to heaven is.

And these clowns call atheists foo.ls....

PasD: if you are talkin abt a god that's fine. But if you are talkin abt God then you need to retract this statement or I wil respond to you in an.............way. Do it now 'oga'

You've been terribly confused for a while now. Read this, it explains better my position and has a therapeutic effect.

Logicbwoy: look, I am not a fan of the Burkha but if some women want it, so be it.

Not good enough. "They want it" is not good enough, at all. Terrorists would like nuclear weapons, should we let them have them simply because they want it? This isn't a case of not harming others as far they're concerned, it clearly is. Again, mostly because muslims are intolerant. Do you think this same population would have issues with say Buddhist attire? Being tolerant does not equal accepting intolerance, else tolerance will cease to exist.

Their stance is well justified.

Somewhat relevant. Not saying I agree, just another pov

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

popper: Popper had his own sophisticated views on evolution that go much beyond what the frequently-quoted passages say.[41] In effect, Popper agreed with soe of the points of both creationists and naturalists, but alsox disagreed with both views on crucial aspects. Popper understood the universe as a creative entity that invents new things, including life, but without the necessity of something like a god, especially not one who is pulling strings from behind the curtain. He said that evolution must, as the creationists say, work in a goal-directed way[42] but disagreed with their view that it must necessarily be the hand of god that imposes these goals onto the stage of life.

Instead, he formulated the spearhead model of evolution, a version of genetic pluralism. According to this model, living organisms themselves have goals, and act according to these goals, each guided by a central control. In its most sophisticated form, this is the brain of humans, but controls also exist in much less sophisticated ways for species of lower complexity, such as the amoeba. This control organ plays a special role in evolution—it is the "spearhead of evolution". The goals bring the purpose into the world. Mutations in the genes that determine the structure of the control may then cause drastic changes in behaviour, preferences and goals, without having an impact on the organism's phenotype. Popper postulates that such purely behavioural changes are less likely to be lethal for the organism compared to drastic changes of the phenotype.[43]

Popper contrasts his views with the notion of the "hopeful monster" that has large phenotype mutations and calls it the "hopeful behavioural monster". After behaviour has changed radically, small but quick changes of the phenotype follow to make the organism fitter to its changed goals. This way it looks as if the phenotype were changing guided by some invisible hand, while it is merely natural selection working in combination with the new behaviour. For example, according to this hypothesis, the eating habits of the giraffe must have changed before its elongated neck evolved. Popper contrasted this view as evolution from within or active Darwinism (the organism actively trying to discover new ways of life and being on a quest for conquering new ecological niches),[44][45] with the naturalistic evolution from without (which has the picture of a hostile environment only trying to kill the mostly passive organism, or perhaps segregate some of its groups).

There have always been remarkably fo.olish threads, always. Difference being they were at least balanced out by fairly decent ones. Now it looks like 99% $hit to me. But that could be just me

Deep Sight: Lol. Long time wiegraf. I have missed your incomparable randomness.

Good ser, I salute! We have missed your erudition and delivery more.



[s]Though I'm a bit weary, you're one of the few that could genuinely leave me speechless [/s]

I shall contribute if something good comes to mind, if you don't mind

WTF is going on here? Carry your filthy sane discussions elsewhere...

There are various ways to justify this op. Primarily though, I'd say it's about values. Would you find walking around in public na.ked acceptable? Same thing here. Would you like to see slaves running about showing off their tatoos and chains, even if they're very happy slaves, endorsing slavery left, right, centre? Same thing here. Slavery is illegal sef..

Women are second-class citizens islamically, regardless of what they tell you. The way inheritance is handled alone justifies this, not to mention the other stuff. That sort of stuff is illegal in the west. Discrimination is not supported or condoned. The burkha is a nice symbol of women in islam, and the message it sends across shouldn't be tolerated. Tolerating intolerance isn't exactly the way to go about protecting tolerance. Endorsing pseudo-slavery isn't the best way to go about protecting freedom, etc etc. If muslims showed tolerance for other views then it'd be a different story, but they don't. Women could try walking around without covering up in Saudi to see what I mean.

Is there hipocrisy here? Of course. Value systems are subjective, they are not (and cannot be) fully rational per say.

Moral relativity is inescapable, if the muslims want to whine, then they should let, say foreigners at least, that visit their countries walk around without the burkha, etc. If they can force women there to wear them when in their backyard, I fail to see why they would have an issue with others forcing them not to wear them when they visit other backyards. Nobody forced them to come over, and in those parts, that is what they value. That is the law. Muslims themselves use this reasoning to justify their morality (eg oga prophet and his child-bride). Hypocrisy, but it's a small price to pay for freedom from the POV of the west.

There are also security issues, wearing a mask in certain places aids committing crimes.....blah blah blah..

TLDR; they simply find the way women are treated in the islamic world appalling, and will not stand or condone it in anyway. If they were more tolerant it'd be a different story, but they aren't

italo: Once again, I dint read this product of randomness and mindlessness.

May the peace of the Lord come upon you.

Thank you for, and again, spending time on a post you supposedly don't care about.

And please keep your gods genocidal love away from me. I wouldn't wish it even on a Hitler

Kudos

Mr Troll: But you want laws to be made based on your unproved claims. Lol, we are not stupid you know.

Abacha sef go fear

italo: God is because we say so. Prove to us that God isnt.

God isn't because I say so, prove to me it is.

italo: I would be glad to receive your award...considering who is calling me "foolish."

What would hurt me is when thinking adults call me foolish...or when foolish people call me wise. That'd really hurt.

You like to mask your vacuousness by claiming you're sticking only to the topic, or what your myopia and dishonesty decrees is the topic (SHIKENA!!), and claim everything else is irrelevant. So I'm confused as to why you feel the need to add this your jara. Why do you think I care about this your foo.lish opinion over here? I mean, if you really didn't care, then why not ignore it like you ignore everything else, relevant or not?

Anyways, we can do this all day. Your post was unquestionably [size=20pt]FOO.LISH[/size], because I say so. Prove to me isn't.

I'll do one better and say all your posts, pablum as they are, should be reserved for children's storybooks. Because I say so.

PasD: Wanna pick on me sir? Maybe u should explain what cyber war means to me so I dnt get to misappropriate it again

Are you picking on me? Where do you see me 'picking' on someone?

Do you know how to use google?

italo: Why should I prove anything to a self-professed mindless, purposeless, random particle?

I dont get it

I propose an award for most foo.lish post of the year. The way you express so much nonsense with so few words demands some acclaim.

Ok, I have a purpose, because I say so. Prove to me that I am purposeless.

Note, this is actually a sensible request, but I'll ignore that for now...

Mickey7: While most people believe all babies come from God,some,(nigerians)still hold that there is some "being" somewhere who sends evil babies into the world.

I hope neither side is complaining as this is pot vs kettle $hit. And very funny. Babies coming from god.... black man, everything is god. don't do anything....

Op, they're as evil as those children in the east that were tossed out of their houses for being winchies a few years back.

Random; If you read the op and thought to yourself "what an excellent question", you need to return your brains to 'god' or whatever travesty issued it and get a refund.

PasD: Enough!!! Both of you!! This is called cyber war. I have patiently read ur comments and I say enough of this! THREAD CLOSED!!!!!!!! Wdh!

Do you even know what cyber war is?

^^

That's an epistle? No need to try to hide the fact that you have absolutely nothing to offer, never do, except of course 'italo says so, shikena!'. Do we give you the impression of being remotely as sheeplish as you, blindly accepting stuff just because??

Mind your biz and face your hipocrisy. Spend time dealing with your priests that kill trillions of babies when deposit their loads in the backsides of little boys, rather than spouting nonsense on the internet over an issue that has nothing to do with you. Or at least if you must complain, don't whine when you're called out.

Hmm, I can't help but notice you do not address any of the points, and use these as reason for doing so??

italo: ^^^

If you cannot even admit that it was you who mentioned "better" and cannot where I said it, then you can continue your randomness with your fellow random purposeless particles.

Leave me out.

If you cannot admit that more suffering does not equal better conditions then you're either of a genuine re.tard or a tool of astronomical proportions. Or are you saying that it's better to suffer needlessly? (To suffer for someone else's crimes no less)

Again; You said it, not me. Just because you use different words does not mean you did not say it. It is the implication of what you said. 1 + 1= 2, therefore 2 - 1 = 1. Very simple. Again, only a re.tard can not see something so brazenly clear (self-evident, really). Wtf?

You make it clear, "innocents will suffer for innocent blood spilled". How the f%&k does suffering = better conditions. You are dishing out a warning, stating there will be trouble if your delusions are ignored, and you somehow think the effect of this warning will not worsen the situation? Not make it less better? Then why the f$*k the warning? What exactly are warnings used for if not point out danger? What is wrong with you?

As for your right to ignore my randomness, that's good. I hope you understand that you do have the right to ignore me, seems that's the path you're taking (though you're doing it simply because you have no answers my good dishonest). Excellent. I cannot force you to answer, or say eat on command, etc. You agree? So I hope you won't be a hypocrite and extend this same freedoms to pregnant women, let the decide what they do with their own bodies. They're clearly not yours, no?.....

italo: Like I said. Abortion will bring suffering on even the innocents in the land. I choose not to explain it to a random particle... unless it has evidence to the contrary.

Ahhh, yet here you are fear mongering on an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with you. Or are you a pregnant woman? Telling them what to do with their bodies and whining about not wanting to explain your biblical whargarrbl to an atheist like me? I suppose because I'm not an xtian my opinion/knowledge/etc about this your 'sin', 'innocents' and other nonsense is inconsequential, yes? Yet you're an authority on pregnancy, despite being an adult male?

Mind your own business, hypocrite.

Also, just now I patted the intangible invisible pink unicorn, we even soaked garri. It is so unless you can prove me wrong.

7spirit: questions and answers.

Q. are religions, dominations and doctrimes matters?

A. NO! this is because when man face judgement, he will not be ask which religion or domination he belongs.

Q. is hell and heaven real?
A. if the sun and moons are real, and the bible give an account of how all things are created, including man. then it is real.

Q. how will judgement be?
A. it will be very tereble, for judgement are for the belivers. 13 judgement throne will the believer pass through and if he is found wanting in any of the judgement he will from there go to hell. entering heaven is like trying to pass camel through the eye of niddle.

Q. what are the requirement?
A. accept jesus, be baptise of water and holy Spirit, and be very holy.

Q. what happens if a man give is life to christ?
A. is name is written in the book of life,a foundation is lay up for him in heaven, and a white garment is given him to wear; and holiness is what keeps the garment clean. always use the boold of jesus for your sanctisfication per minute per seconds, for no man can be completly holy.

Q. how can one build up on the foundation that is lay?
A. by holy life,by giving,and by soul winning.

Q. what happen to those whos names are not found in the book of life?
A. they are at once cast to hell withot wasting time.

Q. Will there be any form of mercy in judgement?
A. No; for after death is judgement.

Q. Which judgement is the hardest?
A. The last one which is the main gate to heaven, for it is call righteousness and holiness.

Q. Which one is greater; the gifts of the Spirit or the fruits of the Spirit?
A. It is the fruit for it able man to enter the kingdom of GOD.

Q. How can one win soul effectively?
A. Prinkle the blood of Jesus upon that person to norlify every spell cast upon him and to open his eyes to the truth, and ask the holy spirit for help.

It may surprice you to know, that there are churches who has being in existence for more than hundrend years; but it member has no even one enter the kingdom of GOD. From the founders to lest of its members. Please pray that GOD tells you through His Spirit these churches.

There are three known to me and may unknown to me. Demonic pastors; but please, to be at the safer side in this endtime, but not your faith in any man and in anything. But put your faith only on JESUS and the word of GOD.

please reply to ask questions and tell all. Fear GOD and Stay holy. May GOD preserve you till the very end.

Post of the year

Erhaps even the decade. I nearly pissed myself

texanomaly: If we were talking Nazis here, I would have to agree. Even though I would consider that child abuse, the law,at least here in the US, would not.

Since we are talking Christians and Atheists, I believe you said you agree, in general, with me. I can live that. Thanks.

Cool. Don't misunderstand though, clearly not all xtians are comparable to NAZI. However, especially in this environment, quite a few are. And it's not a case of bad people just being bad, it's a case of good people being bad because of their religious beliefs.

texanomaly: They are still under their parents protection. It is disrespectful to challenge that. Also they are very young. I realize it is tempting to get them at an age when they are easily manipulated, but it seems almost criminal, to undermine the parents authority that way.

While I agree with your general message, for various reasons, it is not that clear cut. If your neighbor was raising nazis, would that not constitute to some form of child abuse? Actually, it likely is literally criminal to not report parents in certain laws if you suspect them of child abuse. In these cases one isn't challenging the parents, but protecting the children.

Again, I generally agree with your post for the most part, especially when moral relativity, individual rights, etc, come into play, but it is not that simple.

italo: I do not want to digress by discussing my idea of better. Period! It was you who said something about that. It was you who said it was subjective. So just save me your personal opinion which means nothing to many people.

No, it was you. CLEARLY SO. You said innocents will suffer. I fail to see how innocents suffering translates to better conditions.

Explain and stop being a coward. Or let me guess, we should just accept innocents will suffer just because.

italo: Where did I claim "moral superiority?"

Where you imply that people who perform abortions aren't innocent.

Does every.single.thing have to pointed out to you?

italo: Where did I claim "things will be 'worse' if we legalize abortion?"

Again, you clown, you said INNOCENTS WILL SUFFER, not me.

Do you need a dictionary or simple comprehension skills?

italo: I dont see what this has to do with this thread.

Considering your myopia, that's understandable. Don't worry, you'll see

italo: When I mentioned innocents dying, I was referring to the innocents in the womb being killed.


Which do you want me to prove: that they are innocent or that they are being killed?

Ok, scratch innocents dying. Simple. Innocents suffering. Again, I await. Try not to deflect it.

italo: I was talking to religious people who were talking in a religious context. They dint need evidence to understand me. You then jumped in and challenged me so I wanted to know if you have evidence contrary to what I'm saying. But you dont. I am not interested in proving to you that people suffer for sins when you dont even know what sin is.

I've asked you to explain and all I get is this. Educate me. Can you get to it or not? Or are you just spouting nonsense?

italo: 1. Many of your utopian countries including US and Europe are in economic decline while Africa is witnessing economic growth.

Oh wow. And for the thousands of years where other cultures have thrived while living in this your 'sin', which I'm sure roughly translates to whatever your nonsensical moral code condemns, while less less 'sinful' cultures declined, how do you account for that?

America, for instance, which would probably translate to less 'sinful' in your nonsense speak, is in decline, at least when compared to godless china. Please explain that.

italo: 2. Abortion is not the only sin that brings suffering on a people.

Please, list all these things. And again, explain what your suffering entails.

Let me guess, does being less sinful = being xtian?

italo: 3. That sin brings suffering doesnt necessarily mean that if Bill Gates commits abortion, he'll suffer so bad that he'll be financially poorer than a Lagos bus conductor today (also, consider that the conductor sins and suffers for it too). What I say is: 'Bill Gates will suffer for his sins.'

By now you should know what to do...

italo: *boring*

It wasn't meant to entertain you, bros, but educate. I just hope you learned something; get off your silly 'yahweh is the special one atheists concern themselves with'. Replace yahweh with pikkiwoki, so long as you mix your government and politics you would be challenged, simple.