Originally posted by Bicnarok
this is a good point, you can't judge people who lived in a totally different era, a barbaric era which we cannot begin to comprehend by today's standards
But this brings us back to LilB's point, Mohammad and his wisdom are supposed to be timeless. Though, honestly, ideas like that have never stopped other religions from changing with time.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But this brings us back to LilB's point, Mohammad and his wisdom are supposed to be timeless. Though, honestly, ideas like that have never stopped other religions from changing with time.
How can his wisdom be timeless he was just a man.
Wisdom could be timeless if all experiences are saved in a vast ocean of of information, like the Akasha idea.
The thing is who has access to it🙂
we do its called internets and guess what we do with it?
watch dumb ppl getting killed and impaled by animals while we laugh and look at lots and lots of porn.. the few smart ones learn how to make bombs and weapons to scare the rest of us who are just tryng to enjoy a certain aspect of knowledge sex and pain
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm not arguing that, sorry.
Which discredits your argument - not to mention that you conveniently ignored the facts as they suit you. In fact you ignored all of the Hadiths which you do not like and discarded Muslim view of Muhammed.
You're basically making up a story about Muhammed to suit some imaginary view of Mo - unfortunately, it doesn't work like that.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But, I'm sure Backfire hit it right on the head with his post: why the **** does it matter if children were his primary preference? He still ****ed a little girl. It was not necessary for an alliance (the girl was the daughter of Muhammad's "brother"😉. A sex act, one time, with a child, does not constitute clinical pedophilia, of course. Muhammad can try and justify sex with a child all he wants, but it's still sex with a child. There's a reason it's looked down upon as something horrible: 1. we are programmed to find sexually mature humans attractive and there are several markers that make this easy. 2. Little girls can't handle a full grown man's penis: some girls die from sex with an adult male (how absurdly horrible.) 3. Muhammad HAD to get an sustain an erection in order to have sex with a girl, which means, on some level, he was sexually attracted to a prepubescent child. 4. It looks like he used religion to get away with it.4 reasons for me to not give a shit that it doesn't qualify as clinical pedophilia.
Maybe you could talk some sense into me: I'm probably being extremely biased about this because of how much I care about my daughter and my crapload of nieces: I would NEVER condone or agree to letting a 50+ year-old-man have sex with any of them at 9. That's just so horrible and disgustingly wrong from both a biological and my own emotional perspective.
cool
so you admit you were using the term improperly and my point is done
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
That's nice, but it doesn't really relate to what I said. QM made the assertion that Muhammad was not a pedophile. Rather, he was merely acting out the societal mores of the day and as such his actions were not evil.This position is, as I see it, a perfect example of how Cultural Relativism can be contorted to defend even the most backwards and wrongheaded actions imaginable. As far as I can tell, the actual motivations behind his actions were ascribed (by QM) entirely to Cultural Norms, rather than some sort of active sexual compulsion. Thus, I was not (intentionally) suggesting that "mental health issues are just 'made up.'"
Edit: i seem to have stepped into a discussion without the necessary context. 😮
explaining the cultural context and relevance of behaviour to understand why people behave in the way they do is not the same as excusing the moral ramifications of the behaviour.
Else, your position is little better than people who think you are a terrorist sympathizer for questioning if Israeli military policy really makes their citizens safer.
Muslims dont want others to draw their prophet because it offends them, how is it a freedom of expression violation? So not being allowed to call someone "n!gger" or "jap" because they get offended is a freedom of speech violation? Dont see anyone b1tch about that.
I swear sometimes I think those people want others to "violate" their freedoms just so they can b!tch about it. The whole point of this dumb contest. As if its gonna change anything...
Originally posted by BackFireDoesnt have to be in person, newspapers can be sued for racistic articles, channels for commercials etc. Doubt it'll be concidered a freedom of speech/expression violation. And choice or not doesnt matter. The point - someone gets offended. Again, same thing. Only difference - americans are used to be tolerant when it comes to races after all these years, but not used to tolerate other peoples beliefes if they dont like them.
Not the same thing at all. What a spectacularly stupid analogy.Religious beliefs don't equate to race. One's a choice, one isn't. One is attacking a person directly, one isn't.
Originally posted by SamZEDmy white filled neighborhood probably wouldnt care and the one hispanic family probably laugh along with the college kids...i think it would have bn better if you said to do it at a job since they could sue me for a hostile work environment and discrimination etc etc
Then go outside and call some black guy a "n!gger". I promise you'll get sued and that's if you're lucky. Same thing.
Again, equating mocking a person's CHOSEN religion to racism is extremely fallacious. It is not a sound comparison. You are not required to follow the rules of a religion that you do not believe in. Just because some people are offended by it does not mean the two are equal. Some Jews will be offended if they happen to see you eating pork, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to eat pork.
And besides, in America racist speech is protected and allowed. It's just so deeply frowned upon that newspapers and the like don't engage in it because it will destroy their product - no one will buy it and they will lose all advertising revenue. So your point is doubly wrong.
Originally posted by BackFireSo just because you're not required to follow the rules of chosen religion it should make it any less offensive if someone insults it and thus make it ok while insulting somone's skin color isnt because he didnt have a choice? Sorry, I dont see any logic in this.
Again, equating mocking a person's CHOSEN religion to racism is extremely fallacious. It is not a sound comparison. You are not required to follow the rules of a religion that you do not believe in. Just because some people are offended by it does not mean the two are equal. Some Jews will be offended if they happen to see you eating pork, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to eat pork.And besides, in America racist speech is protected and allowed. It's just so deeply frowned upon that newspapers and the like don't engage in it because it will destroy their product - no one will buy it and they will lose all advertising revenue. So your point is doubly wrong.
Imagine some nutjob running on a street shouting "I hate all those f##$% chinks!" Wont he get arrested in US? And if he gets arrested wouldnt that be a violation of his freedom of speech going by that logic?
Originally posted by Wild ShadowHeh, I see. Was just making an example. Laws/constitution aside - insulting someone's beliefes is no better than insulting someone's race. Its just people are used to see racism as almost a crime.
my white filled neighborhood probably wouldnt care and the one hispanic family probably laugh along with the college kids...i think it would have bn better if you said to do it at a job since they could sue me for a hostile work environment and discrimination etc etc
Originally posted by SamZED
So just because you're not required to follow the rules of chosen religion it should make it any less offensive if someone insults it and thus is ok while being insulting somone's skin color isnt because he didnt have a choice? Sorry, I dont see any logic in this.Imagine some nutjob running on a street shouting "I hate all those f##$% chinks!" Wont he get arrested in US? And if he gets arrested wouldnt that be a violation of his freedom of speech going by that logic
Racism directly implies hatred - a hatred for a person's race. Drawing a picture of Mohammad does not imply hatred. In this case, it was done out of simple protest. Misguided protest perhaps, but it was done out of protest none the less. No one is saying "I hate Muslims", and drawing a picture does not suggest that. It suggests indifference, not hatred.
You are basically comparing someone not following the rules of another religion to racism. If you don't understand the difference then you are past hope. So by your logic, if you eat pork knowingly in front of a Jew, you're as bad as a racist. If you suggest to a Christian that Jesus was not real, you are as bad as a racist. If you draw a picture of Mohammad, you are as bad as a racist - No. No one with any sense or reason will follow such a dimwitted comparison.
And if that person running around on the street was arrested it wouldn't be because of racist comments, but for causing a disturbance. There are occasionally marches held by Neo Nazis in this country, and they are allowed to do so. They spout off their hatred and they are allowed to do so as long as they do not disturb the peace or incite violence.
Originally posted by BackFireOk point taken, and agreed on most of your post, except one thing.
Racism directly implies hatred - a hatred for a person's race. Drawing a picture of Mohammad does not imply hatred. In this case, it was done out of simple protest. Misguided protest perhaps, but it was done out of protest none the less. No one is saying "I hate Muslims", and drawing a picture does not suggest that. It suggests indifference, not hatred.You are basically comparing someone not following the rules of another religion to racism. If you don't understand the difference then you are past hope. So by your logic, if you eat pork knowingly in front of a Jew, you're as bad as a racist. If you suggest to a Christian that Jesus was not real, you are as bad as a racist. If you draw a picture of Mohammad, you are as bad as a racist - No. No one with any sense or reason will follow such a dimwitted comparison.
And if that person running around on the street was arrested it wouldn't be because of racist comments, but for causing a disturbance. There are occasionally marches held by Neo Nazis in this country, and they are allowed to do so. They spout off their hatred and they are allowed to do so as long as they do not disturb the peace or incite violence.
Well consider the fact that the group was started as a direct response to extremist muslims threatening violence for the portrayal of their prophet. I believe it was done not to anger all Muslims, but just those extremists. The fact is that if the extremists didn't threaten violence then none of this would have happened.