Side discussion about General Topics forum

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by u crank

Thank you. Well said. I wish I had said it.

I like to buy you a beer.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Well my fellow kuffar, we have our understanding they have thiers. Party on Garth

Actually our understandings aren't so far apart: "For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God." Gabriel is the usual culprit on the horn. "And the dead in Christ will rise first.??!!" According to the Quran,"" God sent the Quran to the Islamic prophet Muhammad through His angel Gabriel (Jibra'il) and sent a message to most prophets, if not all, revealing their obligations. Gabriel is named numerous times in the Quran (2:97 and 66:4 for example)"". I 'spect resurrection will be a thirsty affair: And I can't imagine "MAN ABOVE" sent dissimilar communications to both parties! A Hamm's on the Christian view and a Moosehead on the Islamic view. CYA BBY first or second really don't matter in the long run! ALL will be made clear relatively soon We''ll need kegs for this!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So all I have to do is type in some Italian city states or the Hanse into the forum search engine, come across some hoppe/Lew Rockwell nonsense about the success of the utopian economic model. Find a reference to the fate of those entities as proof that the historic examples being offered were examples which didn't support the utopian dream as they were failed experiments which fell because of the obvious inadequacies of the ideology.

Pretty much, but with the actual link and quotes to show it means what you say it means.

Or quote items in the links you condemn to show how they're wrong. Just saying it's wrong doesn't make it so.

Would it be funny if you had participated in those very topics?

I don't have to participate to read them and see when someone is attacking someone else for no apparent reason, and object. Every claim needs to be substantiated, even the claim that someone is an idiot. Or a liar.

Edit to add. damn hows that for luck. the second hit on the search has the apostacy thing too, amazing how that ended up together with the Hanse in a topic about soccer.

Cool, I guess. Is it relevant? If so, can you share?

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

When they make war on you


Yes, but people have claimed that the punishment of death for apostacy is contained in it, it isn't.


Which means the genuine hadiths cannot contradict the Koran

So Muhammad never made war on anyone? Did he every force conversion or force you to pay a tax or fee to believe as you wish? You really find this a peaceful religion based on that alone?

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Oh, you've said it a great many times. You haven't shown any actual evidence even once.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Are you back in your habitual phase?

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

If you mean am I still waiting for you to provide a link or back up your claims whenever you assault someone, then Yes.

Get a room you two

Originally Posted by Oberon

Tribes, Steve does have a point here, I mean, you go on at Skybird at the choice of his links but at least he does provide links. It doesn't take long to provide them and it lends your argument a LOT more credibility when challenged.

Even if it's Dailymail?

[Skybird]

Rockstar is right, I am saying the same like he does, since years. Muhammad is the guiding example Muslims follow (if they are really Muslims). Hence the term "Muhammedanism". In the end, what Muslims in his time as well as today "believe to know" about allah, depends on what Muhammad narrated about Allah. That makes Muhammad even more central, neutrally seen, than Allah itself.

And to those who think they must relativise today's barbary carried out by Shariah law and IS terror and the like, by sprinkling ashes over their heads and mourning "Haven't there been the crusades of which our forefathers were guilty?" (a reactive war of defence to recover territory lost to attacking Islam), "Haven't there been religious wars in our countries", and this and that and more of that, I have only one question: when was the last time Christians stoned to death a women for adultry in Europe, when was the last time a witch was burned and the inquisition raged, and nations declared wars over religious issues against each other, here in Europe? Was it in recent present, or was it so and so man centuries ago?

Islam still is a deeply superstitiuous tradition. It got stuck in a medieval mindset that the rest of the world for the most has left behind - since long, long time.

That's why relativising that difference simply does not work. The difference in cultural advancement is not relative at all - it is absolute. It is a fact.

[Rockstar]

You are correct, it is written in the Sura of the cow. There shall be no compulsion in the religion. According to that verse the right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. But to use this verse alone to define a muslim is , I think, folly.

Reading further one finds how those who don't willingly see the light are to be treated.

O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them.... (9:73)

O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you.... (9:123)

Say unto those of the wondering Arabs who were left behind: Ye will be called against a folk of mighty prowess to fight them until they surrender.... (48:16)

..."And fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah alone." (8:39; 2:193)

[MH]

As far as I can tell ISIS may be regarded as great defenders of Islam.
Western culture may be regarded as threat to Islam , how and where you engage the threat then may be irrelevant...

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Even if it's Dailymail?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah but if you have participated in the topic you must have read it, if you have participated and read a topic you must be familiar with its contents, if you are familiar with it you cannot claim there is no apparent reason when the same things are raised again.

But your attacks have no apparent reason. You never link, you never go quote anything from the links that would back up your claims, you never prove your case. Everyone else does these things, only you do not.

Lets take a simple one, you objected because I called someone a Nazi, I said it was well established on this forum previously that the person in question believed in a global jewish conspiracy and posted stuff which led dierectly to the ideology espoused by the NSDAP.
Do you remember my replies and my response to the infraction you gave and your demands for links?

If it was proven the member in question would be banned. That he has not been means that while suspected, it has not been proven. If you can't prove it then you don't cast aspirations, and you don't call people names. That should be simple.

Did I quote what I was responding to
Did I respond to it
Did I quote additional material to support what I wrote
Calling someone a Nazi isn't calling names, its a description of a rather disgusting political ideology.
....
Already proven
.....
But you are familiar with the material aren't you?
So why do you question its existence?
Are you just trying to be awkward.
....
Are you denying the truth of it?
.....

Did you do any of those things? Can you show where you did. It's all rhetoric, and no, it's not proven.

So I will ask you again. Do you need a link if someone says the world is a sort of spherical shape or can you accept it as being already established?

If asked, yes. Also, I can prove it myself. You don't seem to be able to do that.

Now then onto the current, you want proof, well I think there is some proof that is rather compelling and irrefutable, it has been mentioned before many times but lets just make it clear again.

This is the line you always take, yet you never actually bother to do the work yourself. If you claim it, you should show it. Every time.

To everyone else: I apologize for this line of posts, but this is the thread in which Tribesman again attacked and mocked someone, which is against the rules here.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So in essence to deal thoroughly, absolutely and in detail with your claim the answer should be...
Errrrrr...no
Though maybe as it is such an obvious, Errrrr...no, a few more would be in order to signify how incredibly wrong the claim you made was.

This is what started it. Again I apologize, and I'll end it now.

To Tribesman: I've said in the past that I was giving you your last warning, and I've backed off from that in the vain hope that you could be brought to see that what you do is trolling at its worst. Yet again I decided to call you on it, and yet again you try to turn it around on anyone else than yourself. I can't make you back up any claim you make, but I can ask for a link. On the other hand you are on notice - mockery and insult of the type quoted above is not allowed, and since you have a history going back several years...well, you know the rest.

I'm done, and again I apologize to everyone.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

If it was proven the member in question would be banned. That he has not been means that while suspected, it has not been proven. If you can't prove it then you don't cast aspirations, and you don't call people names. That should be simple.

I'm just going to come in here.

What sort of proof is required?

I refer to the Subsim rules which state:

Subsim allows for a wide range of opinions, politics, and attitudes but we do not accept members who are associated with hate groups. Examples include but are not limited to Neo-Nazi groups, Westboro Baptist Church types, racist supremacists, Klansmen, black militants, Islamic militants, Jewish conspiracists, anti-Semites, posting links to racist music, propaganda denying the Holocaust.

How does one prove such a thing without the person involved going "Oh hai, I'm a member of Stormfront, death to all the Jews."
Is it when they post links to videos with viewpoints that are based in religious or cultural hatred? Is it when they make those viewpoints repeatedly on multiple occasions and dismiss other people as fools for not believing in the same thing that they do?
Where is the line in the sand?

[Onkel Neal]

So, anyway, I moved all the offtopic posts from the ISIS and Ukraine threads here... now, if we can get back on topic.

Originally Posted by Oberon

I'm just going to come in here.

What sort of proof is required?

I refer to the Subsim rules which state: Subsim allows for a wide range of opinions, politics, and attitudes but we do not accept members who are associated with hate groups. Examples include but are not limited to Neo-Nazi groups, Westboro Baptist Church types, racist supremacists, Klansmen, black militants, Islamic militants, Jewish conspiracists, anti-Semites, posting links to racist music, propaganda denying the Holocaust.


How does one prove such a thing without the person involved going "Oh hai, I'm a member of Stormfront, death to all the Jews."
Is it when they post links to videos with viewpoints that are based in religious or cultural hatred? Is it when they make those viewpoints repeatedly on multiple occasions and dismiss other people as fools for not believing in the same thing that they do?
Where is the line in the sand?

Exactly! I for one am pretty tolerant of different opinions. And I understand a person is like to let off some steam occasionally. Like ikalugin said: I do not mind sensible replies and even reasonable amounts of burning emotion. After all we are all humans and have limited rationality, as well as access to information and ability to process it.

Where is the line, indeed? Two big factors: who defines where it is, and who interprets each statement and measures it to determine if it is line. And that falls to me, the moderators, and the community. In the past, when we got a person who repeatedly made it clear he was an anti-semite or nazi, enough of the community would voice their disapproval and he was left out of future discussions. But not everyone is going to agree. Personally, I can stand a little more than some people. We've had a couple of avowed commies post here. I need to see a pretty blatant example before I feel compelled to yank someone. For me, I prefer to skip their posts and ignore them. And if that leads to topic spamming to get my attention, then that is sufficient grounds for dismissal.

I also cast a sour look at calling people names: Idiot, racist, liar, fool, sheep, etc. If you want to say Miley Cyrus is a tart, or some rapper is an idiot, that's less bothersome. I believe we should give elected officials a modicum of respect for their office, but they can still be criticized (just less severely than thugs, and Miley Cyrus). :P


Any ideas on improving the tone of GT? Should the moderation be stricter? Less freedom of expression? A list of names you cannot call someone?

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So 9.
If they ask for your protection be nice to them and then convey them to a place of safety?
As long as they are true to you be true to them?
They observe not the treaty they made with you?
Will you not fight the bloke who broke his word and attacked you?
Bit of last day end of times fires of hell stuff?
Go to the heavenly gardens and reside with pleasure?
If money and possessions are more important to you then you are on the wrong bus?
Invisible heavenly bodies doing gods work?
Some clergy have been hording wealth instead of doing gods work god knows and will send them to their doom as he is not happy about that sort of thing?
More fires of hell stuff with bottoms getting roasted?
The comforts of life mean nothing in the hereafter, don't go looking for them if you want a happy time in heaven?
Don't accept the contributions if they are given unwillingly?(so that's the forced tax scuppered)
More painful doom in the afterlife?
More painful doom in the afterlife?
Hypocrits eternal doom fires of hell?
Becoming like the prattling hypocrits sends you to the doom?

Keeping the Sura in context what do think Sura 9 as a whole is saying?

...

Now your bit, why is it cut short?
.....their destination is hell?
Come on if you are going to say 9:73 give 9:73
So wahts aftyer :73....
Oh no they are going to be sent to eternal doom, that's a bit harsh
oh my , they will be heaped with derision and endup with eternal doom. That's really harsh that derision stuff.

Here is the whole of Sura 9:73 O you prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern in dealing with them. Their destiny is Hell; what a miserable abode!

My understanding of this is the same as my last post. It deals with what the practioner of Islam should do to the unbeliever. The part you make so much drama about the 'Their destiny iin hell' you caught my red handed on, simply indicates to me the reason why they may deal harshly with the unbeliever, because they are going to hell anyways.

Not only is that my understanding it appears by all news accounts the understanding of the practioners of this sura.

Seriously Rockstar you can do better than that.

Ok then lots more of the same . now your next bit ....
You blokes in Madinah who are being persecuted , rise up against the aggressor

Damn that nasty stuff relating to :123 how dare they rise up against their persecutors.

Oh yes persecutors, that covers your bit from 8: doesn't it.

So whats left, oh yeah 48, damn you cut that short too.
So you blokes that didn't fight the persecutors last time but then came for protection, if you don't fight the persecutors next time but whish to claim the reward your reward will be eternal doom in the fires of hell.

honestly Rockstar, is that the best you could manage?

Honestly Tribesman I have no idea what this rambling is about.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

So, anyway, I moved all the offtopic posts from the ISIS and Ukraine threads here... now, if we can get back on topic.

Any ideas on improving the tone of GT? Should the moderation be stricter? Less freedom of expression? A list of names you cannot call someone?

A reasonable question that deserves reasonable answers. Until then, may I share my opinions?

1. The moderators need to be stricter about keeping members on topic. As evidenced, the mods/admin have the capability of taking posts and moving them to other threads. This needs to be done more often.

If someone makes a thread on topic abc then all the posts need to be related (how that is defined) to topic abc. The hijacking of threads on GT is getting a bit too common for my liking.

2. The mods need to be more willing to move posts to other threads that cover the same topic. Far too often someone makes a new thread that discusses the exact same thread we had last week. Move the new thread to the existing thread so the conversation can continue. It also makes searching a bit easier.

3. Some threads should have a life span. Some of the threads like the funny pictures don't. They can and should go on. It is kinda fun to see how many posts we can get on these fun threads.

On the other hand, there are too many threads where the discussion is circular. There comes a point (difficult to define) where a thread discussion has completed. Nothing new is being discussed, nothing new is being added.

4. I don't know what the mods can/should do about this one, but while I am bitchin'... I wish there was some way to limit the private arguing on the public threads. It is becoming more common for a thread to devolve into an argument between two people, each copying walls of text to insert comments so the other person copies walls of text to add comments.

Unfortunately, there are people who simply must have the last word in a conversation. When there is one of those, it is not too bad. On this forum, we have, unfortunately, several people who will not acknowledge that a person can have a different viewpoint without being wrong and must "win" every argument, no matter how many copied walls of text it takes.

5. It has been brought up before and I think it needs discussion. Should we have sub forums in GT? It seems like there are repeating topics that come up every few weeks. A religious thread that gets people spun up; then a political thread that gets people spun up. An gun thread... you get the idea. Why not have religious, political, ... sub forums. That way all threads are there (or are moved by mods). It is easy to search. People are are interested in that sub topic (pun intended) can find threads they would enjoy reading. Those who don't won't.

There are forums that have strict no politics and no religion rules. They tend to be pretty nice friendly forums to visit. We don't have to allow political or religious threads.

6. Last but not least (then why the hell did I not put it first?) I would like the mods to be more active in enforcing the rules. The mods don't need to brig people. That does not really accomplish much. I would like the mods to either delete or censure offending posts. If I start breaking the rules, either delete my whole post or just the offending lines. That will get the point across far better than posting my offending post and brigging me. The best way to handle trolls is to remove what they seek -- attention.

7. Boobies. This site needs a lot more boobies

[Rockstar]

I vote for more Boobies we could definitely use more Boobies.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

7. Boobies. This site needs a lot more boobies

Damn, now I'm off topic...


<O>