If Islam is "really a peaceful religion"

The first thing you would have to explain is how you expect HER to be a "man" about anything? Or is THAT all relative to you too?

Except in rare genetic abnormalities, a man is biologically a man and a woman is biologically a woman. There is noting relative about that.

I did not know that nt250 was a woman. I used a sexist cliché. I should have made statement more specific. It is as simple as that. Your point is taken. Now, why don’t you, nt250, show class and character. Admit that I accepted and met your challenge.
 
It's good to realize that 'early' about krammer. Save yourself some aggrivation.

To understand this hellish deviant, you have to reduce yourself to the mindset of thinking it's OK to fuck your daughter.

Again, you are trying to compare and contract the messenger with the message. You do not have to understand me to understand my message. The topic/question about weather or not incest should be allowed is different from the topic/question about weather or not Islam is a relatively peaceful religion. That is too complicated a concept for you to grasp, isn’t it?
 
Again, you are trying to compare and contract the messenger with the message. You do not have to understand me to understand my message. The topic/question about weather or not incest should be allowed is different from the topic/question about weather or not Islam is a relatively peaceful religion. That is too complicated a concept for you to grasp, isn’t it?


come up to the USMB reunion in VC and I will show you what I think about your seducing your daughter as being okay...get the drift...perv...albeit I am getting older...I have no doubt in my mind that I can kick your perverted ass!
 
There is nothing moderate about extreme Islam and addressing it as anything other than extreme is addressing it as something it is not.

You also cannot label Muslims who do not commit murder "moderates" simply because they are not terrorists and have as of yet committed no crime. Their religion is anything but moderate. That too is addressing Islam as something it is not.

It all depends on how you interpret the Koran. There are moderate Christians and Christian extremists. There are moderate Muslims and Muslim extremists. They each interpret their religious books in their own way.

The bottom line is, what they want for the world is not in the best interest of the world, nor of Mankind period. So long as they choose to use their current methodology attempting to force the rest of the world into subjugation, they're the bad guys and we aren't. And people like you who can't differentiate between the two don't matter much anyway. You'll just go along with whatever the winner tells you to do. In THAT regard only, it would be justice for you that THEY win.

Who is they - Islam and all of its Muslims or merely Muslim extremists? I agree. I’m against any group that attempts to force the rest of the world into subjugation. There is good in Islam and there is bad in Islam. There is good in the West. There is bad in the West. I can differentiate just fine. No. I don’t always go along with the winner. That was a nice bit of mind reading at the end of your paragraph.
 
There is no hope for this world because the concept of right and wrong is lost to too many people. They sit back in their safe houses with their internet access and they see evil everywhere their like minded intellectual midgets tell them to look. And they look no further.

You've nailed it. but what is pretty ironic is they dont see how that invalidates their own arguments for the "social" agenda.
 
come up to the USMB reunion in VC and I will show you what I think about your seducing your daughter as being okay...get the drift...perv...albeit I am getting older...I have no doubt in my mind that I can kick your perverted ass!

LOL - Does might make right now? Let’s erase the rule of law and use rule by the sword. Have you given up on intelligent debate and resorted to threats and attempts at intimidation. :rotflmao:
 
LOL - Does might make right now? Let’s erase the rule of law and use rule by the sword. Have you given up on intelligent debate and resorted to threats and attempts at intimidation. :rotflmao:


Not really perv..sometimes a 'Good spanking' is in order..ya have lost it dude...seek counseling or face me!:321:
 
There is no hope for this world because the concept of right and wrong is lost to too many people. They sit back in their safe houses with their internet access and they see evil everywhere their like minded intellectual midgets tell them to look. And they look no further.

There are understood absolutes in math, logic, “hard science” and in facts. In those cases, statements are universally understood to be completely right or wrong – true or false without exception or clarification needed. There are few, if any, absolutes in other areas such as the philosophical area of ethics. Yet, if you “fine tune” a “should” statement with specific details, then you can probably create an absolute. Without such detail, it is relatively easy for me to show examples in which even the previous advocate does not so readily accept a statement previously thought to be an absolute.

Is murder, defiend merely as the killing of another human being always wrong. What about the case of euthanasia in which an elderly but same person wants you to kill him. What if you had a chance to kill Hitler while he was ruling nazi Germany but was no threat to you. There are almost always exceptions to consider.
 
There are understood absolutes in math, logic, “hard science” and in facts. In those cases, statements are universally understood to be completely right or wrong – true or false without exception or clarification needed. There are few, if any, absolutes in other areas such as the philosophical area of ethics. Yet, if you “fine tune” a “should” statement with specific details, then you can probably create an absolute. Without such detail, it is relatively easy for me to show examples in which even the previous advocate does not so readily accept a statement previously thought to be an absolute.


c'mon this old fart called ya out....put up or shut up...12:00 noon Bucket of Blood...let DMP set it up....!
I want a 'Piece' of anyone who says having sex with their 'Daughter' is okay! I may be older but I still have the moves...perv!
 
There are understood absolutes in math, logic, “hard science” and in facts. In those cases, statements are universally understood to be completely right or wrong – true or false without exception or clarification needed. There are few, if any, absolutes in other areas such as the philosophical area of ethics. Yet, if you “fine tune” a “should” statement with specific details, then you can probably create an absolute. Without such detail, it is relatively easy for me to show examples in which even the previous advocate does not so readily accept a statement previously thought to be an absolute.

Is murder, defiend merely as the killing of another human being always wrong. What about the case of euthanasia in which an elderly but same person wants you to kill him. What if you had a chance to kill Hitler while he was ruling nazi Germany but was no threat to you. There are almost always exceptions to consider.

Give me one exception that says shooting a little kid in the back as they run for their lives is not wrong (Beslan).

Give me one exception that says an adult man boarding an airplane with the sole purpose of killing everyone on board, and as many people on the ground as he can, can see little kids and babies, and carry out his plan anyway is not wrong (9/11).

Give me one exception that says shooting children for taking candy from Amerian GI's (Iraq) is not wrong.

Give me one exception that says targeting first responders to a previous suicide bombing (Israel) is not wrong.

Give me one exception that says blowing people up for having a good time at a nightclub (Bali) is not wrong.

Give me one exception for blowing people up on a bus or a train (Spain, London) is not wrong.

Give me one exception for targeting a mosque at the height of Friday prayers when you are sure to kill the most people (too many times to mention) is not wrong.


Isn't the fact that Muslims are the ONLY people who deliberately target mosques enough of a clue for any of you to understand what Islam is and what it's goals are?
 
Give me one exception that says shooting a little kid in the back as they run for their lives is not wrong (Beslan).

Give me one exception that says an adult man boarding an airplane with the sole purpose of killing everyone on board, and as many people on the ground as he can, can see little kids and babies, and carry out his plan anyway is not wrong (9/11).

Give me one exception that says shooting children for taking candy from Amerian GI's (Iraq) is not wrong.

Give me one exception that says targeting first responders to a previous suicide bombing (Israel) is not wrong.

Give me one exception that says blowing people up for having a good time at a nightclub (Bali) is not wrong.

Give me one exception for blowing people up on a bus or a train (Spain, London) is not wrong.

Give me one exception for targeting a mosque at the height of Friday prayers when you are sure to kill the most people (too many times to mention) is not wrong.


Isn't the fact that Muslims are the ONLY people who deliberately target mosques enough of a clue for any of you to understand what Islam is and what it's goals are?

If you're just trying to aggravate yourself with a morally bankrupt, relativist and dishonest literalist, you've picked the right guy. Reality is a concept beyond his ability to comprehend.
 
If you're just trying to aggravate yourself with a morally bankrupt, relativist and dishonest literalist, you've picked the right guy. Reality is a concept beyond his ability to comprehend.

I don't pay attention to user names.

Besides, how do you keep all the morally bankrupt, relativist, dishonest literalists straight? There are so many of them.
 
Give me one exception that says shooting a little kid in the back as they run for their lives is not wrong (Beslan).

What does Beslan have to do with your challenge? In the strictest answer to your question: If there were no additional information (no war is involved and no special circumstances) then it would be wrong to shoot a little kid in the back for no reason at all.

Yet, if you were to add just a little bit more information, my opinion might change.

Imagine that you were the leader to a group of soldiers engaged in a war. You managed to secretly establish a camp within enemy territory. A child, sent out to look for such enemy soldiers discovers your camp and is running to tell its parents. The child is too far for you to catch but you could easily kill it with your silent rifle. If the child escapes, it will tell others and it is highly likely that your group would be attacked, overwhelmed, and killed. What would you do? It would be a tough call for me, but to save many of my fellow soldiers in a fight for a cause that I believe, I would likely kill the child.

Give me one exception that says an adult man boarding an airplane with the sole purpose of killing everyone on board, and as many people on the ground as he can, can see little kids and babies, and carry out his plan anyway is not wrong (9/11).

Why did you say that the sole purpose was to kill everyone on board and why did you include “9/11” within the same challenge? Don’t you understand that you are including an assumption that we may have a disagreement on.

If you had simply asked if it were wrong to board a plane for the mere purpose of killing as many people as you could, I would easily say, “Yes”.

Give me one exception that says shooting children for taking candy from American GI's (Iraq) is not wrong.

Right off hand, I can’t think of an example in which the shooting of children for taking candy from American GI’s is not wrong.

Give me one exception that says targeting first responders to a previous suicide bombing (Israel) is not wrong.

I see nothing wrong with responding to an attack as long as the response is against the correct people. It would be a shame if, in retaliation, someone shoots a little kid in the back as they run for their lives.

In the heat of war, in a dangerous area, accidents and mistakes happen. I am not pardoning gross events that happen but merely pointing out that circumstance should be taken into consideration.

Isn't the fact that Muslims are the ONLY people who deliberately target mosques enough of a clue for any of you to understand what Islam is and what it's goals are?

Islam and Muslim are two different things. One is a religion and the other is people that supposedly, allegedly try to folly that religion.
 
What does Beslan have to do with your challenge? In the strictest answer to your question: If there were no additional information (no war is involved and no special circumstances) then it would be wrong to shoot a little kid in the back for no reason at all.

Yet, if you were to add just a little bit more information, my opinion might change.

Imagine that you were the leader to a group of soldiers engaged in a war. You managed to secretly establish a camp within enemy territory. A child, sent out to look for such enemy soldiers discovers your camp and is running to tell its parents. The child is too far for you to catch but you could easily kill it with your silent rifle. If the child escapes, it will tell others and it is highly likely that your group would be attacked, overwhelmed, and killed. What would you do? It would be a tough call for me, but to save many of my fellow soldiers in a fight for a cause that I believe, I would likely kill the child.



Why did you say that the sole purpose was to kill everyone on board and why did you include “9/11” within the same challenge? Don’t you understand that you are including an assumption that we may have a disagreement on.

If you had simply asked if it were wrong to board a plane for the mere purpose of killing as many people as you could, I would easily say, “Yes”.



Right off hand, I can’t think of an example in which the shooting of children for taking candy from American GI’s is not wrong.



I see nothing wrong with responding to an attack as long as the response is against the correct people. It would be a shame if, in retaliation, someone shoots a little kid in the back as they run for their lives.

In the heat of war, in a dangerous area, accidents and mistakes happen. I am not pardoning gross events that happen but merely pointing out that circumstance should be taken into consideration.



Islam and Muslim are two different things. One is a religion and the other is people that supposedly, allegedly try to folly that religion.

Nienna left a thread for you. It has all of your arguments listed. Go check it out.
 
Jewish Rabbi Attacked in Germany by… Muslim Mob

June 7, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

011-Deutschland-judenstern-m-inschrift-jude02-377x350.jpg


The more things change, the more they stay the same. The men in jackboots and swastika armbands have been swapped out for men in beards and toting Korans.

A group of youths attacked a rabbi on Sunday evening in Offenbach, a city near Franfurt. Six to eight “Mediterranean looking“ youths attacked the 39-year-old Rabbi Mendel Gurewitz.

Police spokesman Rudi Neu, in southeast Hesse state where Offenbach is located, said a criminal complaint was filed and there was probable cause to investigate for an anti-Semitic hate crime, bodily injury and harassment.

The alleged attack took place in a shopping center passage. The authorities are reviewing video cameras from the shopping area for footage of the event.

Mark Dainow, the deputy director of the Jewish community in Offenbach, criticized the security personnel at the shopping location for failing to intervene to stop the aggressive activity of the youths.

Gurewitz was forced to flee the building and the youths pursued him. A friend of the rabbi drove by and rescued the rabbi by picking him up in his car. The manager of the shopping mall apologized for the conduct of the security personnel.


...

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/jewish-rabbi-attacked-in-germany-by-muslim-mob/

---> Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood - Tell The Children The Truth - Homepage


...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top