Why Confront Islam?

[Monk-Eye]

" Mind ******* Intentions By Terrorist Facilitators To Overwhelm Inn Numbers "

* Adversarial Obfuscation Of Vacuous Denial *

Not the way you are using it.
You misuse words, make a lot of false assumptions and your conclusions aren't logical.

There are not any false assumptions that torahnism and qurayshism are genetic religions that do not apply outside of their respective city states of israel and hejaz ( the barrier ) .

There are not any false assumptions that antinomianism stands opposed to nomianism .

There are not any false assumptions that tenets of creed within fictional ishmaelism violate non aggression principles , and that all are entitled to invoke self defense against its intentions for tyranny by majority that includes not extending citizenship to those adherents ; and , a religious exception is not entitled to its adherents by us constitution by apatheistic determination .

* Nature Of No One Promises You Any More Than That *

There are not any false assumptions that an after life , reincarnation , being born again , a chance for eternal life , are all metaphors with a literal meaning for passing on ones genetic identity to ones offspring , where failure to do so - in perpetuity - alludes to the metaphors of final judgment and eternal damnation .

 

[danielpalos]

We have a First Amendment? The subjective value of morals is a private concern.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Threats For Intended Acts Of Illegitimate Aggression Are Not Protected "

* Just Sew Hue Know *

We have a First Amendment? The subjective value of morals is a private concern.

The violation of non aggression principles is a public concern .

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There is as old adage that says if an infinite number of monkeys are given an infinite number of typewriters, eventually one of them would write something coherent.

Could it be that Monk-Eye is the code word for some sort of experiment testing that very notion?

 

[danielpalos]

" Threats For Intended Acts Of Illegitimate Aggression Are Not Protected "

* Just Sew Hue Know *

We have a First Amendment? The subjective value of morals is a private concern.

The violation of non aggression principles is a public concern .

Yes, once they ask for assistance from our secular and temporal Government, it is no longer a Religious issue but a natural rights issue.

 

[ding]

" Threats For Intended Acts Of Illegitimate Aggression Are Not Protected "

* Just Sew Hue Know *

We have a First Amendment? The subjective value of morals is a private concern.

The violation of non aggression principles is a public concern .

Yes, once they ask for assistance from our secular and temporal Government, it is no longer a Religious issue but a natural rights issue.

Everything will always be a natural rights issue. This becomes especially obvious when man tries to squelch natural rights.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Confusing Ding "

* Conditional Sense *

Yes, once they ask for assistance from our secular and temporal Government, it is no longer a Religious issue but a natural rights issue.

One of the better colloquial allusions to " natural rights " or " inalienable rights " is " hubris on stilts " .

There are natural freedoms and we exchange those for protected wright according to a constitution .

Fictional ishmaelism violates non aggression principles and should non aggression principles be a foundation for the social civil contract , all are entitled to invoke self defense against extending membership to fictional ishmaelism adherents .

 

[ding]

" Confusing Ding "

* Conditional Sense *

Yes, once they ask for assistance from our secular and temporal Government, it is no longer a Religious issue but a natural rights issue.

One of the better colloquial allusions to " natural rights " or " inalienable rights " is " hubris on stilts " .

There are natural freedoms and we exchange those for protected wright according to a constitution .

Fictional ishmaelism violates non aggression principles and should that be a foundation for a social civil contract , all are entitled to invoke self defense against extending membership to those adherents .

By necessity any gathering of men requires a hierarchy to be established. Said hierarchy does not negate natural rights. No matter what law was written or how it was justified.

 

[Taz]

" Confusing Ding "

* Conditional Sense *

Yes, once they ask for assistance from our secular and temporal Government, it is no longer a Religious issue but a natural rights issue.

One of the better colloquial allusions to " natural rights " or " inalienable rights " is " hubris on stilts " .

There are natural freedoms and we exchange those for protected wright according to a constitution .

Fictional ishmaelism violates non aggression principles and should that be a foundation for a social civil contract , all are entitled to invoke self defense against extending membership to those adherents .

By necessity any gathering of men requires a hierarchy to be established. Said hierarchy does not negate natural rights. No matter what law was written or how it was justified.

Where can I find these "natural rights"?

 

[ding]

" Confusing Ding "

* Conditional Sense *

Yes, once they ask for assistance from our secular and temporal Government, it is no longer a Religious issue but a natural rights issue.

One of the better colloquial allusions to " natural rights " or " inalienable rights " is " hubris on stilts " .

There are natural freedoms and we exchange those for protected wright according to a constitution .

Fictional ishmaelism violates non aggression principles and should that be a foundation for a social civil contract , all are entitled to invoke self defense against extending membership to those adherents .

By necessity any gathering of men requires a hierarchy to be established. Said hierarchy does not negate natural rights. No matter what law was written or how it was justified.

Where can I find these "natural rights"?

You and monk will discover them when they are taken away and not one moment sooner. Some people are that way.

 

[Taz]

" Confusing Ding "

* Conditional Sense *

Yes, once they ask for assistance from our secular and temporal Government, it is no longer a Religious issue but a natural rights issue.

One of the better colloquial allusions to " natural rights " or " inalienable rights " is " hubris on stilts " .

There are natural freedoms and we exchange those for protected wright according to a constitution .

Fictional ishmaelism violates non aggression principles and should that be a foundation for a social civil contract , all are entitled to invoke self defense against extending membership to those adherents .

By necessity any gathering of men requires a hierarchy to be established. Said hierarchy does not negate natural rights. No matter what law was written or how it was justified.

Where can I find these "natural rights"?

You and monk will discover them when they are taken away and not one moment sooner. Some people are that way.

Taken away by whom?

 

[ding]

" Confusing Ding "

* Conditional Sense *

Yes, once they ask for assistance from our secular and temporal Government, it is no longer a Religious issue but a natural rights issue.

One of the better colloquial allusions to " natural rights " or " inalienable rights " is " hubris on stilts " .

There are natural freedoms and we exchange those for protected wright according to a constitution .

Fictional ishmaelism violates non aggression principles and should that be a foundation for a social civil contract , all are entitled to invoke self defense against extending membership to those adherents .

By necessity any gathering of men requires a hierarchy to be established. Said hierarchy does not negate natural rights. No matter what law was written or how it was justified.

Where can I find these "natural rights"?

You and monk will discover them when they are taken away and not one moment sooner. Some people are that way.

Taken away by whom?

Men.

 

[Taz]

" Confusing Ding "

* Conditional Sense *
One of the better colloquial allusions to " natural rights " or " inalienable rights " is " hubris on stilts " .

There are natural freedoms and we exchange those for protected wright according to a constitution .

Fictional ishmaelism violates non aggression principles and should that be a foundation for a social civil contract , all are entitled to invoke self defense against extending membership to those adherents .

By necessity any gathering of men requires a hierarchy to be established. Said hierarchy does not negate natural rights. No matter what law was written or how it was justified.

Where can I find these "natural rights"?

You and monk will discover them when they are taken away and not one moment sooner. Some people are that way.

Taken away by whom?

Men.

Which rights?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Semantic Hubris "

* Pretentious Validity Based On Self Exception *

Taken away by whom?

The premises for " inalienable rites " is that the rites are intrinsic with a wanton , or a " natural " , desire for particular civil liberties .

The presumption for " natural rites " is absurd because the civil liberties can be alienated and a wanton desire for them includes no greater validity than a wanton desire for some other to remove them .

When hue mammon attempts to apply the standard of " inalienable rites " to animals based upon their wanton desire , the absurdity of " natural rites " becomes evident .

The tenets of creed by fictional ishmaelism violate non aggression principles however , as with many promoting " natural rites " , a wanton desire for civil liberties must also meet its " morality standards " to be consistent with a subjective criteria of " natural " .

 

[BreezeWood]

" Mind ******* Intentions By Terrorist Facilitators To Overwhelm Inn Numbers "

* Adversarial Obfuscation Of Vacuous Denial *

Not the way you are using it.
You misuse words, make a lot of false assumptions and your conclusions aren't logical.

There are not any false assumptions that torahnism and qurayshism are genetic religions that do not apply outside of their respective city states of israel and hejaz ( the barrier ) .

There are not any false assumptions that antinomianism stands opposed to nomianism .

There are not any false assumptions that tenets of creed within fictional ishmaelism violate non aggression principles , and that all are entitled to invoke self defense against its intentions for tyranny by majority that includes not extending citizenship to those adherents ; and , a religious exception is not entitled to its adherents by us constitution by apatheistic determination .

* Nature Of No One Promises You Any More Than That *

There are not any false assumptions that an after life , reincarnation , being born again , a chance for eternal life , are all metaphors with a literal meaning for passing on ones genetic identity to ones offspring , where failure to do so - in perpetuity - alludes to the metaphors of final judgment and eternal damnation .

.

There are not any false assumptions that an after life , reincarnation , being born again , a chance for eternal life , are all metaphors with a literal meaning for passing on ones genetic identity to ones offspring , where failure to do so - in perpetuity - alludes to the metaphors of final judgment and eternal damnation .

There are not any false assumptions - are all metaphors with a literal meaning for passing on ones genetic identity to ones offspring ...

are all metaphors ...

not all by the metaphysical are destined for procreation and where the unlucky very few, time runs out. to attain the absolute before death is not a metaphor ...


where failure to do so - in perpetuity - alludes to the metaphors of final judgment and eternal damnation.

where failure to do so ... eternal damnation .

the religion of Antiquity, the travails of noah - in Triumph is that case ... what happened to Jesus is not: damnation = / = the innocent. .or who's allusions.


.

 

[ding]

By necessity any gathering of men requires a hierarchy to be established. Said hierarchy does not negate natural rights. No matter what law was written or how it was justified.

Where can I find these "natural rights"?

You and monk will discover them when they are taken away and not one moment sooner. Some people are that way.

Taken away by whom?

Men.

Which rights?

It has been called by many things in the past. The Law of Right and Wrong, Natural Law, etc.

You should look it up. Check out legal positivism as well.

 

[ding]

" Confusing Ding "

* Conditional Sense *

Yes, once they ask for assistance from our secular and temporal Government, it is no longer a Religious issue but a natural rights issue.

One of the better colloquial allusions to " natural rights " or " inalienable rights " is " hubris on stilts " .

There are natural freedoms and we exchange those for protected wright according to a constitution .

Fictional ishmaelism violates non aggression principles and should non aggression principles be a foundation for the social civil contract , all are entitled to invoke self defense against extending membership to fictional ishmaelism adherents .

There are natural rights in all species. They are just different.

 

[ding]

" Semantic Hubris "

* Pretentious Validity Based On Self Exception *

Taken away by whom?

The premises for " inalienable rites " is that the rites are intrinsic with a wanton , or a " natural " , desire for particular civil liberties .

The presumption for " natural rites " is absurd because the civil liberties can be alienated and a wanton desire for them includes no greater validity than a wanton desire for some other to remove them .

When hue mammon attempts to apply the standard of " inalienable rites " to animals based upon their wanton desire , the absurdity of " natural rites " becomes evident .

The tenets of creed by fictional ishmaelism violate non aggression principles however , as with many promoting " natural rites " , a wanton desire for civil liberties must also meet its " morality standards " to be consistent with a subjective criteria of " natural " .

Every species has its own unique set of natural rights. You can't apply ours to theirs. Not unless you are an idiot.

 

[ding]

Of course it is our natural rights which sets us apart.

Why? Because they are logical and we are beings that know and create. We are unlike any other.

 

[Taz]

" Semantic Hubris "

* Pretentious Validity Based On Self Exception *

Taken away by whom?

The premises for " inalienable rites " is that the rites are intrinsic with a wanton , or a " natural " , desire for particular civil liberties .

The presumption for " natural rites " is absurd because the civil liberties can be alienated and a wanton desire for them includes no greater validity than a wanton desire for some other to remove them .

When hue mammon attempts to apply the standard of " inalienable rites " to animals based upon their wanton desire , the absurdity of " natural rites " becomes evident .

The tenets of creed by fictional ishmaelism violate non aggression principles however , as with many promoting " natural rites " , a wanton desire for civil liberties must also meet its " morality standards " to be consistent with a subjective criteria of " natural " .

Seriously brah, learn some proper English. I have no idea what you're talking about.